So, Chapterhouse gets a 4+ save and modified WBB?
I'll support that!

AndrewC wrote: So IIRC there is a freedom of expression allowed, CHS has sculpted a three dimensional representation of a literary figure. IE if someone sculpted a DaVinci 'David' using nothing but a written description of it then they are safe from prosecution.

Several times over, as the Bible - the original source material, and the works of DaVinci, (and Michealangelo- who sculpted the most famous David) are all in the public domain.

YMMV if you choose a character who's sculpt and desc are -not- in the public domain...

I understand that Lancer I was trying to use a item that was iconic in its' own right that wasn't a wargaming figure, rather than produce a specific example.

The fact that I have 'derived' a three dimensional figure from a literary context means that it is a derivative work. Which is a valid defence if prosecuted.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:I understand that Lancer I was trying to use a item that was iconic in its' own right that wasn't a wargaming figure, rather than produce a specific example.

The fact that I have 'derived' a three dimensional figure from a literary context means that it is a derivative work. Which is a valid defence if prosecuted.

Does that make it a bit clearer?

Cheers

Andrew

Still have no idea what you're saying brah

take it easy
-Vladsimpaler

Sorry sleep deprivation.

As long as a work is derivative it is a personal expression rather than a copy.

If someone creates something in one medium in this case literary and then someone else then converts it into another medium, sculpture, then it's not a copy but a derivative work.

As a derivative work I am then able to use that work to my own benefit.

So if, using another example, Picasso had only described his sunflowers picture as a blue vase with X sunflowers sticking out of it, I could paint a picture and say this is my rendition of Picassos sunflowers.

There was a similar case brought up in another conversation re a photograph of a real life rendition of a painting. But because the models wore the same colour/style clothes and the cats were the same colours, to the painting, it was deemed an infringement, however had the cats been dogs, or even different colours, then it appears it would have been a derivative work and so 'legal'

Do I make more sense?

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:As long as a work is derivative it is a personal expression rather than a copy.

If someone creates something in one medium in this case literary and then someone else then converts it into another medium, sculpture, then it's not a copy but a derivative work.

As a derivative work I am then able to use that work to my own benefit.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

"Derivative work" has a very specific meaning in the context of copyright law, and it is NOT a defense to copyright infringement. Generally speaking, only the original copyright holder has the right to create derivative works. (When, as in all your examples, the original work is in the public domain, anyone may create derivative works from the original.)

I think what he means is inspired by.

AndrewC, Janthkin is correct. You should be careful about what terms you use because "derivative work" is a legal term. A derivative work is a translation, motion picture adaptation, abridgment, or other work that recasts, transforms, or is adapted from the root copyright. (I think I'm missing one of the specific examples but that's pretty much it) The owner of the original copyright owns all works that are derivative.

As I said, what you likely mean is something closer to inspired by. Legally-speaking, it is perfectly appropriate to be inspired by another's protectable work as long as you don't unfairly appropriate that which is protectable, i.e. as long as you don't make a copy. I can read a story and be inspired to write a similar story, or draw a picture, or make a sculpture, or write a song. You only cross a line when you start to copy something, unless you have created a derivative work, which would be the property of whoever owns the original copyright.

That said, I've argued in the past that a derivative work is necessarily rather narrow. The reason is that if it is not one of the specific examples cited in the definition it must be "recast, transformed, or adapted from" the root copyright in order to be derivative. Copyright only covers those elements of a work that are protectable, thus narrowing the window for derivative. Further, the definition implies a same or similar medium, or at least only directs one towards a work produced in the same or similar medium. All of the examples in the definition refer to literary works, aside from a motion picture adaptation. However, a motion picture adaptation starts as a written screen play and it also includes the elements that give a literary work meaning, e.g. narrative, characters, et.

So, if you wanted to argue that a sculpture is "recast, transformed, or adapted from" a story, I think you'd have a pretty difficult time of it. One can attempt to interpret the definition of derivative work broadly, as Games Workshop has attempted to do, but the definition directs one towards a narrow interpretation. If it did not, it could begin to stretch the boundaries of copyright protection into the realm of ideas, concepts, systems, methods, etc. which is expressly outside the boundaries of copyright protection, even to the extent that anything which is as a practical matter indispensable from the expression of an idea is not considered to be protectable.

Here is a somewhat relevant section from a 2008 post on Bill Patry's copyright blog (http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2008/02/photographs-and-derivative-works.html):

"Photographs of other objects are not derivative works of those objects. First, a photograph of an object is not “based on” that object: It is a mere depiction of it. Second, even if one were to find that a photograph of an object is based on that “preexisting work” within the meaning of the definition of “derivative work” in Section 101, such a photograph must still “recast, transform, or adapt” the authorship in the preexisting work to be considered a derivative work. Such recasting, transformation, or adaptation does not occur in a photograph of an object, even copyrighted objects. What makes a derivative work a derivative work is the contribution of changes in the actual authorship of the preexisting work, not a mere depiction of that work."

Janthkin wrote:

AndrewC wrote:As long as a work is derivative it is a personal expression rather than a copy.

If someone creates something in one medium in this case literary and then someone else then converts it into another medium, sculpture, then it's not a copy but a derivative work.

As a derivative work I am then able to use that work to my own benefit.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.

"Derivative work" has a very specific meaning in the context of copyright law, and it is NOT a defense to copyright infringement. Generally speaking, only the original copyright holder has the right to create derivative works. (When, as in all your examples, the original work is in the public domain, anyone may create derivative works from the original.)

Do you have a specific Case? Link? Quote?

It is interesting that the English word and meaning differ from the Legal meaning.

AvatarForm wrote:

Janthkin wrote:"Derivative work" has a very specific meaning in the context of copyright law, and it is NOT a defense to copyright infringement. Generally speaking, only the original copyright holder has the right to create derivative works. (When, as in all your examples, the original work is in the public domain, anyone may create derivative works from the original.)

Do you have a specific Case? Link? Quote?

It is interesting that the English word and meaning differ from the Legal meaning.

I'm going to largely refer you to Weeble's post, as he's put a lot more effort into it than I'm going to.

But "derivative work" is defined by the copyright act, and the rights of copyright holders include the exclusive right to create derivative works.

I don't see any conflict between English & law here, merely a misunderstanding of the term in the context of the law - a derivative work is, indeed, derived from the original. It's just not a defense to copyright infringement.

I've never been aware of, nor understood an accepted meaning of, the phrase "derivative work" except in the context of copyright law.

It means what weeble1000 says it means.

I think AndrewC may have malapropped something.

AndrewC wrote:There was a similar case brought up in another conversation re a photograph of a real life rendition of a painting. But because the models wore the same colour/style clothes and the cats were the same colours, to the painting, it was deemed an infringement, however had the cats been dogs, or even different colours, then it appears it would have been a derivative work and so 'legal'

Rogers v. Koons. We discussed it a few pages back.

I'd bet that there's some case where a literary character was recast as either a picture or sculpture. If I have some time at the office this week I'll see if I can look it up.

First of all, everyone you are right, I have used the completely wrong term in most of my posts here. I'm sorry for the confusion. I hope that you can see past the mistake to the idea expressed. I should have used the word 'inspired' instead.

To use another example, Alan Lee, and John Howe are probably the best know artists of Tolkien, yet to my knowledge they are not licence holders, or at least weren't when they made their name. They take a literary reference and translate it to a picture. Yet ownership of that picture stay with them. Even though the picture is clearly Tolkien, it doesn't belong to Tolkien Estates or whichever company currently holds the copyright.

Am I forgiven? I did point out that I'm rather sleep deprived at the moment.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote: To use another example, Alan Lee, and John Howe are probably the best know artists of Tolkien, yet to my knowledge they are not licence holders, or at least weren't when they made their name. They take a literary reference and translate it to a picture. Yet ownership of that picture stay with them. Even though the picture is clearly Tolkien, it doesn't belong to Tolkien Estates or whichever company currently holds the copyright.

A little search-fu on google revealed, that Alan Lee has been doing Tolkien for about 25 years, before that, having made a name for himself with fantasy illustrations and illustration of various myth cycles, for at least a decade before that.

http://www.bpib.com/illustrat/lee.htm

In 1987, he was apparently hired to do art and illustrations for a re-issue of the books, and then later hired to do conceptual art for the movie, so he in fact -is- a license holder, or is employed by one. It's quite possible that he might -not- own the copyright on the pieces he did, or if he does so, he's done so through elements of his contact with the publisher.

Professional Illustrators tend to be -very- careful about working with rights holders, as if they mess up, they might loose their job prospects...

But, yes, you are forgiven...

OT posts deleted.

PLEASE stay on topic!

So far, this thread has been amazing it its ability to stay on topic, be informative AND remain polite and, dare I say, friendly?

Please help keep it that way...

Thanks!

Alpharius wrote:So far, this thread has been amazing it its ability to stay on topic, be informative AND remain polite and, dare I say, friendly?

Friendly? How very dare you!

I have another question for our cadre of legal experts: It was suggested very early on in these discussions that the firm representing CHS could be doing so pro bono with a view to setting a legal precedent in this field. Is there some form of benefit to the law firm for setting a legal precedent, or is this sort of thing largely about company prestige and client attraction?

That was answered.

They could have a HUGE interest in setting precedent. It *could* be that they've got another -much bigger- lawsuit in the works which would benefit from setting precedent with the CHS case.

Eric

It's also just plain good advertising.

Lanceradvanced wrote:A little search-fu on google revealed, that Alan Lee has been doing Tolkien for about 25 years, before that, having made a name for himself with fantasy illustrations and illustration of various myth cycles, for at least a decade before that.

In 1987, he was apparently hired to do art and illustrations for a re-issue of the books, and then later hired to do conceptual art for the movie, so he in fact -is- a license holder, or is employed by one. It's quite possible that he might -not- own the copyright on the pieces he did, or if he does so, he's done so through elements of his contact with the publisher.

Professional Illustrators tend to be -very- careful about working with rights holders, as if they mess up, they might loose their job prospects...

But, yes, you are forgiven...

I would dispute that he is a licence holder, as he has either been hired to produce work, in the case of New Line and the aniversary book, in which case the copyright of the items produced pass to the commissioner {Has vision of Peter Jackson in a Commissars uniform with a bolt pistol to Alan Lees head "Draw man, draw!"}

However, Alan Lee / John Howe are also both independent artists in their own right, and have both produced artwork inspired by Tolkien, and that artwork is their copyright. I went looking for a link, but ended up with a virused site, which curtailed any further research.

The assertion that a non licenced individual can produce artwork from a literary source which is theirs to do with seems to be borne out. Whether artwork = sculpture I dont know.

Cheers

Andrew

PS Thanks for forgiving me my horrendous error

Sculpture is an artistic work protected under UK (and most countries') copyright law.

Kilkrazy, sorry what I was getting at was that if an artist can produce a picture inspired by a literary work, and keep the copyrights, would a sculpture receive the same retention of rights.

Hence my question of does artwork equal sculpture.

Cheers

Andrew

I am not a lawyer, however I don't see what would prevent it.

Literature is a conceptual medium. 2D art and sculpture are both visual media.

For example, Tolkien described Gandalf as being tall, with a tall staff, piercing eyes, long beard and so on. An artist had to visualise this using imagination and skill to depict it as visual art. Of course once a visual representation has been made in 2D, a sculpture based on it will probably be a derivative work.

If the writer described the character or object in enough detail to constitute a specification, it would be a different matter.

If Tolkien had said that Gandalf was six feet five inches tall, with neck, chest, waist and inside leg measurements of XYZ, etc. ... robes of Pantone no.1223, and so on...

You can see the difference.

A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

This is from their website:

"When McAndrews, Held & Malloy was founded in 1988, our mission was to attract the most exceptional intellectual property and technology-focused attorneys the legal world has to offer. Our firm's steady growth has been accomplished at an attorney-by-attorney pace, rather than by merger or acquisition."

Clearly, McAndrews, Held & Malloy are representing Paulson pro-bono. So now we have two large firms representing the defendants pro-bono.

The attorneys representing Paulson are: Ronald H. Spuhler, Ronald A DiCerbo, and Thomas James Campbell, Jr.

The case just got a little more interesting.

I am glad that Mr Paulson has some decent support. He seemed to be dragged into the case by a tidal rip.

His alleged "Tau Walker" has hardly any similarity to any GW designs. He did not deserve to get pilloried by GW's legal bully boy tactics.

What effect does this have in practical terms? I suppose that GW's lawyers will have to copy all correspondence to Paulson's lawyers as well as Chapter House's lawyers, thus doubling their workload and costs.

How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

Hmm, the sharks smell blood it seems!

GW need to make an initiative test to break from combat and immediately move 3d6 x 100 miles in any direction.

Redbeard wrote:How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

You've never worked for or hired an attorney, have you? 4 words, charge by the hour. By the time GW sees the bill, the time taken to communicate with the defending counsel's office, consult with the attorneys there and extra filing charges and fees associated with paperwork costs.... yeah; not cheap but hardly sufficient to break GW's bank.

weeble1000 wrote:A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

This is from their website:

"When McAndrews, Held & Malloy was founded in 1988, our mission was to attract the most exceptional intellectual property and technology-focused attorneys the legal world has to offer. Our firm's steady growth has been accomplished at an attorney-by-attorney pace, rather than by merger or acquisition."

Clearly, McAndrews, Held & Malloy are representing Paulson pro-bono. So now we have two large firms representing the defendants pro-bono.

The attorneys representing Paulson are: Ronald H. Spuhler, Ronald A DiCerbo, and Thomas James Campbell, Jr.

The case just got a little more interesting.

I'm not saying they AREN'T, but how is it clear that they're working pro bono?

Eric

I'm simply making the assumption that a man who couldn't pay the "Law Office of Kenneth J. Luptak" wouldn't be able to afford two shareholders and an associate from a prominent Chicago law firm. No offense to Mr. Luptak intended, of course, but I'm sure his billing rate is a little bit more modest.

I though Paulson had been wrongly identified by GW. CH are selling the thing. I'm unclear as to what the nature of his defence would need to be. I though it was clear he wasn't involved and you don't need a heavyweight legal team to clarify that with the court do you?

AvatarForm wrote:
It is interesting that the English word and meaning differ from the Legal meaning.

Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

Chicago = Mos Eisley?

at least chicago has good pizza though!

going there in 2 weeks for acen... gonna eat me lou malnati's and pizza uno as much as possible... all while dressed as gordon freeman

weeble1000 wrote:A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

This is from their website:

"When McAndrews, Held & Malloy was founded in 1988, our mission was to attract the most exceptional intellectual property and technology-focused attorneys the legal world has to offer. Our firm's steady growth has been accomplished at an attorney-by-attorney pace, rather than by merger or acquisition."

Clearly, McAndrews, Held & Malloy are representing Paulson pro-bono. So now we have two large firms representing the defendants pro-bono.

The attorneys representing Paulson are: Ronald H. Spuhler, Ronald A DiCerbo, and Thomas James Campbell, Jr.

The case just got a little more interesting.

Sounds like GW may have kicked over the proverbial hornets nest. Play the 800lb. gorilla, hope that someone doesn't notice the zipper.....

Redbeard wrote:How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

weeble1000 wrote:A little case update:

John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.

The case just got a little more interesting.

The case got ALOT more interesting. Apparantly GW looks to have bitten off more then they can chew. I dont care how good GW lawyers are, they're up against lawyers specializing in this part of the law. That cant be good for GW.

Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

GBDarkAngel wrote:Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

But it isn't clear cut that their use of names constitutes infringement and places them in the wrong. That's the point. The thread is a lot of reading, but it would seem that because GW derive so much of their stuff from other sources anyway and many things are borderline generic in nature... well to sum up CH may not be beyond reason in using GW names as long as they are careful in other regards. If they claimed to be sanctioned by GW or were seeking to confuse the customer into thinking they were actual GW products they would be in deep water. But mere use of names, it's very grey. Loads of people do aftermarket parts, CH simply calling a spade a spade doesn't necessarily make it direct infringement, no one can call that until the outcome of a case. I imagine a lot of people didn't think it would get as far as this, and it may not go all the way either, because it's fairly common for these things to be settled without pushing all the way through. That's the reason that there aren't a lot of previous cases where people can draw valid comparisons.

GBDarkAngel wrote:Ive only read some of this thread as its a lot of reading.
I have also looked at Chapterhouses Website and the products they offer.

Their products are challenging GW's trademarks and Chapterhouse are obviously well aware of that.
In the end this all comes down to word play.
Chapterhouse advertise lets say Shoulder Pads compatible with Space Marines, now that is a direct infringement and challenge to GW.
However and i honestly can see no reason why Chapterhouse have not done this other than they want to be "The underdog taking on the faceless corporation", just dont advertise them as Shoulderpads to Fit Sci Fi 28mm Figures.
We would still all know what they were and were meant for but GW could do nothing if worded as such.

If i was the judge sitting on that particular case its the first question i would ask and you sure as hell better have a great answer.

As i said i have only skimmed through the thread and looked at the website and i am basing my comments on that alone.

Ps..You do some nice products.

And your law degree is from where? Otherwise yeah you have an opinion....

In the US individuls and companies have a right to fair use, in using a trademark of another company when it is necessary to the description of a product, or to make comparisons. The first is what CH attempted to do, utilize a legal right as used by many compaies in many other industries. To say GW is right in its actions just because of this aspect of what CH has done, ignores established practices and allows GW an overly broad and exclusive control that far out reaches most companies.

Mad4Minis wrote:

AvatarForm wrote:
It is interesting that the English word and meaning differ from the Legal meaning.

Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

agnosto wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

Chicago = Mos Eisley?

Crap.
Now, we're going to get a whole thread full of the next Dakka meme:
CHS shot first.

Kilkrazy wrote:What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

Paulson doesn't have a lawyer. Didn't have the luck of a pro bono one. He tries to defend himself.
Edit: Oops: haven't seen today's update by weeble1000.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What if Paulson's lawyers reply and ask questions?

Paulson doesn't have a lawyer. Didn't have the luck of a pro bono one. He tries to defend himself.

I think you skipped a page on your read through, reported on page 21 that Paulson has retained the services of McAndrews, Held & Malloy, a large, Chicago based firm specializing in IP litigation.

Honestly, I'm not sure how the combined suit against Paulson survived the first filing, when I'm almost sure I read in one of the pages on this topic that even CHS claimed that Paulson had no part in the Walker design that GW claims he did. I suspect GW's motive in it was to try to kill two birds with one stone though. By naming an uninvolved competitor in the same suit, they perhaps sought to make both CHS and Paulson financially unable to continue operations while only having any "evidence" against CHS?

My only take on Paulson's representation is as follows: whatever counterclaims CHS might have for malicious litigation, etc., Paulson in many ways has a stronger claim. GW's atorneys either didn't do their (very simple) homework to establish the ownership interests of CHS, or they did, and ignored it. Either way, I think it is fair to say, based on the initial filings so far (as well as internet rumor and hearsay...which we all know to always be true and accurate ), that Paulson has been added in this suit incorrectly. It was possibly done so as not to have to face a court and/or jury in TX, using Paulson's residency in IL to establish venue there. (This is all assuming that GW does not have a previously unknown smoking gun or a proverbial rabbit to pull out of a hat.)

This firm might have taken this case because it will get to see its name attached to a potentially precedent setting case. And too, it might see an easy mark with a counterclaim.

weeble1000 wrote:John Paulson has new representation from McAndrews, Held & Malloy. This is a large Chicago firm specializing in intellectual property litigation.
...
The case just got a little more interesting.

From my understanding of the case, Paulson never should have been joined as a defendant. GW would be wise to drop him quickly, given that they will have to respond to all discovery requests in duplicate.

Also:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

the proper term is wretched, not retched.

Eldanar wrote:My only take on Paulson's representation is as follows: whatever counterclaims CHS might have for malicious litigation, etc., Paulson in many ways has a stronger claim. GW's atorneys either didn't do their (very simple) homework to establish the ownership interests of CHS, or they did, and ignored it. Either way, I think it is fair to say, based on the initial filings so far (as well as internet rumor and hearsay...which we all know to always be true and accurate ), that Paulson has been added in this suit incorrectly. It was possibly done so as not to have to face a court and/or jury in TX, using Paulson's residency in IL to establish venue there. (This is all assuming that GW does not have a previously unknown smoking gun or a proverbial rabbit to pull out of a hat.)

This firm might have taken this case because it will get to see its name attached to a potentially precedent setting case. And too, it might see an easy mark with a counterclaim.

That's pretty much my take on it, Eldanar. I expect that McAndews, Held & Malloy will echo Winston and Strawn's actions thus far, including a motion to dismiss based on lack of specificity and similar counterclaims. Winston and Strawn have already taken the ball and run with it, and it's relatively simple for McAndrews, Held & Malloy to follow suit. I wouldn't be surprised if Paulson went to the LCA or some similar organization. Winston and Strawn was likely not the only firm interested in taking on the case for Chapterhouse, so much of the legwork in finding pro-bono support for Paulson was probably already done. I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

weeble1000 wrote:I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

I don't doubt you, Weeble. You've spoken well on this topic from the beginning, but would it be pushing it too far to ask how you know this?

When two or more legal firms are both interested in injecting themselves into a case in this fashion, is there a certain amount of client-schmoozing to do? Or is there a more above-board way of handling it? Is it just a case of representatives from firms speaking to the potential client and saying "We're best for you in this case because of X, Y and Z".

Tantras wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:I know that at least one other major law firm, not involved in the case, was interested in representing the defendants.

I don't doubt you, Weeble. You've spoken well on this topic from the beginning, but would it be pushing it too far to ask how you know this?

When two or more legal firms are both interested in injecting themselves into a case in this fashion, is there a certain amount of client-schmoozing to do? Or is there a more above-board way of handling it? Is it just a case of representatives from firms speaking to the potential client and saying "We're best for you in this case because of X, Y and Z".

This case presents many interesting legal questions. Quite naturally, interesting legal issues come up when one is talking with attorneys. In personal conversations, attorneys from law firms other than those currently involved in the case have at one point expressed interest in being involved in this case due to the compelling nature of the legal issues. For obvious reasons, it ins't cool for me to go naming names. The only important point is that there are interesting legal issues here and it isn't therefore surprising to me that more than one major law firm is involved in representing the defendants.

I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

wwwZugZugorc wrote:I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

That's one of the legal issues I find interesting: are "after market" parts for individual sculptures allowable, under the copyright system in the US?

Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

Redbeard wrote:Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

You're mixing a couple of issues in there.
1) Trademarks. These are used to indicate the origin of a product, such that you know if you're buying a Space Marine, it's from GW. Trademarks don't have to be registered (most states still have common-law trademark protection), but if you want to invoke the Federal protections, you need to register.

2) Trade Dress ("Look and feel"). This tends to be a totality of the experience issue - to over-simplify one of the classic cases on trade dress, just because you have a pinata in your Mexican restaurant, doesn't mean you're infringing on the trade dress of another Mexican restaurant. The entire appearance of a Space Marine might be protectable under a trade dress theory; I have serious doubts whether a shoulder pad could be. You don't have to register trade dress (and aside from protecting individual elements of your trade dress as trademarks, there's really no way to do so).

3) Copyright. Individual sculptures are protected under copyright. Whether a single portion of a sculpture (e.g., a meltagun) is protectable in its own right as a separate sculpture...I couldn't guess at the moment.

Redbeard wrote:Question for the legal minds - how enforceable are look&feel? I seem to recall a lawsuit a few years ago where Harley sued another bike manufacturer over a violation of a 'trademarked sound'. Possibly another where they claimed that the other bike manufacturer had made deliberate design decisions in order to look like a harley. I don't remember how either of these ended.

Do they need to trademark every element of their designs in order to be protected? For example, we can all recognize a GW lascannon, it has a distinct profile. But do the courts recognize that, or is it just a space laser to them? We all know that meltaguns have little melta supply tanks on them and cylindrical barrels with either slots or holes in them - and Chapterhouse's combi-meltas feature both of these design elements. Is that protected, or does it also fall under 'generic sci-fi gun'?

Harley lost.

Janthkin wrote:

wwwZugZugorc wrote:I'm no legal expert my any means but how is this different/similar to the thousands (millions?) of websites and stores that sell aftermarket car parts with ford and chevy logos plastered all over them?

You don't see "exhaust system for 2dr sports car with wheelbase of XXX' its "exhaust system for 98-02 ford mustang"

That's one of the legal issues I find interesting: are "after market" parts for individual sculptures allowable, under the copyright system in the US?

I have a feeling that's going to be the focus of the legal proceedings, because that's really (IMHO) what Chapterhouse is doing. "Buy your GW X and slap our part Y on it."

GW says "No". CHS says "yes". And, all the guys out of GW legal reach say "we don't care".

I really, really hope CHS will win this one and give GW a slap

Just for you boys.

biccat wrote:

Mad4Minis wrote:Ah yes, the legal profession...nowhere will you find a more retched hive of scum and villainy...

the proper term is wretched, not retched.

Maybe after all those all-nighters pulling together a case the cold pizza and noodles fought back!

Cheers

Andrew

PS, I know that there's nothing more that we can know at the moment, but the suspense. Weeble, where's our update!!!!! (please)

A

Whens the update due ?

agnosto wrote:

Redbeard wrote:How is running off an extra copy doubling workload or cost? It's an extra few dollars for copies and postage at most. Making a copy might take the office staff a few minutes. It's hardly any extra work at all for the attorney, I would imagine, and I'm sure they deal with this sort of thing regularly.

You've never worked for or hired an attorney, have you? 4 words, charge by the hour. By the time GW sees the bill, the time taken to communicate with the defending counsel's office, consult with the attorneys there and extra filing charges and fees associated with paperwork costs.... yeah; not cheap but hardly sufficient to break GW's bank.

The lawyers are going to be getting paid anyway; I'm sure GWS has a permanent legal department, yes?

They probably have a small department on staff who will retain specialists for specific work.

They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a

notprop wrote:They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a

We believe a lawyer with the right competency will be able to pick up any specialist legal skills required in the role, so knowledge of intellec-tual property law and litigation experience is desirable but not essential

Why do I see this as funny

loki old fart wrote:

notprop wrote:They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a

We believe a lawyer with the right competency will be able to pick up any specialist legal skills required in the role, so knowledge of intellec-tual property law and litigation experience is desirable but not essential

Why do I see this as funny

I actually kind of agree with that statement. I think if you're a competent attorney, and your employer gives you adequate oversight and training, and you work on the same stuff over and over again, you should be able to figure out the basics of any type of practice and become proficient at it in only a few months, and should be very adept at it in about a year, or possibly less. The key is how much mentoring and training you get; if they just hand you a stack of files and say we'll meet again in a month, unless you are already very proficient with that type of work and familiar with similar business practices within the firm or office, you're f'd. I also would imagine that as an in-house attorney, you probably are doing very little actual litigation; rather, you are administering and overseeing outside counsel. With a smallish multinational corporation such as GW it is simply impossible to have a large enough legal department to have a lawyer licensed and competent to practice in every possible major jurisdiction.

My limited in-house experience taught me that you need to be versant and knowlegeable about the company's lines of business; you need to be proficient with the company's regular internal business practices; you need to be or become proficient with the specific areas of the law that affect the company in its practices; and you need to be a good generalist, as well as good at research, and be able to write short and to the point reports that non-attorneys (who are typically sophisticated with general business issues) will be able to understand and integrate into practice. This may all seem like common sense to a lot of people, but you would be surprised at how many people also don't always get it...

I wonder if this position is sited in the UK, or elsewhere, or if it even matters? Although I am licensed in the state where GW's HQ in N. America is now based...

loki old fart wrote:

notprop wrote:They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a

We believe a lawyer with the right competency will be able to pick up any specialist legal skills required in the role, so knowledge of intellec-tual property law and litigation experience is desirable but not essential

Why do I see this as funny

Hey, the management also picks up the skills to run a toy soldier manufacturer on the go (coming from the shampoo industry IIRC and still googling the word "marketing" and "advertising" and learning that losing customers and sales is a bad thing).
And they have bad experience with IP lawyers, some quitting representing them before court and the rest mocking their legal pages

loki old fart wrote:

notprop wrote:They do and indeed and have been advertising for IP lawyers in the last week.

For those that may be in need of an opportunity - http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=5300001a§ion=community&aId=4300004a

We believe a lawyer with the right competency will be able to pick up any specialist legal skills required in the role, so knowledge of intellec-tual property law and litigation experience is desirable but not essential

Why do I see this as funny

You aren't the only one. As Eldanar said, it's perfectly believable that a good lawyer could pick up the intricacies of ip law pretty quickly. That being said, in this context, that particular line is really funny.

They must be staffing up for a C&D binge.

derek wrote:They must be staffing up for a C&D binge.

More likely after getting the worse end of the stick in the current chapterhouse suit so far, they realize they need folks that know IP law rather then just sending out C&D letters....

carmachu wrote:

derek wrote:They must be staffing up for a C&D binge.

More likely after getting the worse end of the stick in the current chapterhouse suit so far, they realize they need folks that know IP law rather then just sending out C&D letters....

They have(or at least had) an IP lawyer on permanent staff as of a last year. Maybe they've decided to have more than just one and her underlings?

derek wrote:They must be staffing up for a C&D binge.

You know, the last C+D binge happened when the Blood Bowl video game came out. They may well be gearing up for the Space Marine console game and 40k MMO and any sites that may "interfere" with that, much like some of the Blood Bowl sites did.

I don't know what's going on at the moment. I didn't get a chance to talk to anyone. Paulson's representation needs time to get up to speed on the case anyhow. The status conference was held and continued until the 20th, although again, a status conference ins't really very interesting.

Cases like this take time, and this one has actually been progressing rather rapidly. With Paulson having proper representation, things will probably slow down a little bit.

Paulson still has to answer the complaint, so we'll see how that turns out in a while, but I expect it will be functionally the same as the Chapterhouse answer.

This case is still very far out from trial and I honestly don't think it will ever get in front of a jury. If the case doesn't get dismissed, the parties will in all likelihood settle out, unless Games Workshop feels like being particularly stubborn.

The Godking Kirby has shown a mortal flaw, hubris.

I think GW is realizing it's got a lot more to chew on now. From a lot of what I see GW doing, I think they're stretching the law to it's breaking point in more areas than one. Forbidding online retailers to show their product and restricting international sales could both wind up with hefty lawsuit on that front as well. Coupled with their monopolistic attitude towards sales and price, they're up for a spanking.

Surtur wrote:Forbidding online retailers to show their product and restricting international sales could both wind up with hefty lawsuit on that front as well. Coupled with their monopolistic attitude towards sales and price, they're up for a spanking.

I think that's the perfect term to use, "up for a spanking." They're acting just like a spoiled child who needs to be disciplined, but unfortunately for them, the punishment here is a little bit harsher than just being sent to your room without dinner.

GW has a legal monopoly of official Warhammer stuff. (Warhammers are the only wargames in the world.)

The lawsuit is about the degree to which they can control unofficial stuff compatible with Warhammer.

A bit off topic, but maybe some lawyer is able to give some insight in the legality of GW's current attempt to block internet trade with the "Southern hemisphere" http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/368570.page (esp. posts by NeoMaul and ArbeitsSchu)
For a layman it looks like the next legal landmine, GW has put in its way.

Its just part of their terms of sales. If you purchase as a retailer or wholesaler you have to agree to their terms of sales, which makes you contractually promise not to sell outside a geographic region. Its nothing new, plenty of industries do it.

Kroothawk wrote:A bit off topic, but maybe some lawyer is able to give some insight in the legality of GW's current attempt to block internet trade with the "Southern hemisphere" http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/450/368570.page (esp. posts by NeoMaul and ArbeitsSchu)
For a layman it looks like the next legal landmine, GW has put in its way.

Not me; that's an EU/UK matter. As I recall, though, most of the EU legal protections are for protecting trade entering and moving within the EU, rather than for trade leaving the EU.

The whole "battle of forms" may come into play here though...

I really don't want to derail this thread, but maybe we can chat about this new legal situation (the trade block) until updates from the CHS case arrive.

What is the benefit of this embargo of the southern hemisphere? I don't understand what on earth caused it or what they hope to achieve with it...

The benefit to the southern hemisphere is simply that wholesalers and retailers in the southern hemisphere should likely see an increase in sales as they will no longer be diluted by imported sales.

Actually, can we not side track this tread w/ a discussion of the distribution restrictions? Pls start a different thread.

Good idea!

This thread, as noted earlier, has been remarkable in its ability to provide information, entertainment and food for thought while at the same time remaining mostly On Topic and politely, if not in fact Friendly!

Fun fact:

Games Workshop just asked "Raging Heroes" to stop selling a Lammassu which is a mythical beast from Assur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu) also used in D&D. GW once had such a monster for their Chaos Dwarf bighat range which is OOP for a long time, but they seem to intend making a new one for Warhammer Forge. Seems like GW's IP lawyers keep on harassing the industry with unfounded claims.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

aka_mythos wrote:The benefit to the southern hemisphere is simply that wholesalers and retailers in the southern hemisphere should likely see an increase in sales as they will no longer be diluted by imported sales.

Thats optimistic given that consumers outside the EU who have previously used imported sales will be looking at something like 40% increase in their costs. Unless this move is matched by a drop in retail price, I can't see there being a huge uptake in local sales. Certainly doesn't benefit the customers.

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact:

Games Workshop just asked "Raging Heroes" to stop selling a Lammassu which is a mythical beast from Assur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu) also used in D&D. GW once had such a monster for their Chaos Dwarf bighat range which is OOP for a long time, but they seem to intend making a new one for Warhammer Forge. Seems like GW's IP lawyers keep on harassing the industry with unfounded claims.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

Really?

What are Raging Heroes going to do?

They took the Lamassu option off the shop and now just sell the Manticore.

Bummer.

This is why the Chapter House case is potentially a boon to the indy manufacturers.

Kilkrazy wrote:Bummer.

This is why the Chapter House case is potentially a boon to the indy manufacturers.

It could be a boon in many ways . If GW's IP is full of holes. People could start producing Inter galactic armoured marines. In the southern hemisphere

This Lamassu nonsense is a step too far, surely? They don't own that in any way, shape or form... do they?

Wikipedia wrote:Lammasu and shedu are two distinct types of good-aligned creatures in the role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons.

Lammasu also appear in the Magic: The Gathering trading card game as the white card Hunted Lammasu[9] in the Ravnica: City of Guilds expansion.

A bull with a man's head is found among the creatures that make up Aslan's army in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. He appears at the Stone Table, challenging the White Witch "with a great bellowing voice".

In the film Alexander, Lamassu are seen at the Ishtar Gate in Babylon.

In the Disney movie Aladdin, a gold Lamassu can be found in the scene where Aladdin and Abu enter the cave in the desert to find the lamp.

In the Games Workshop gaming system, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, the Lamasu was a mount for the now discontinued Chaos Dwarf army.

A Lammasu briefly appears in the Fablehaven series.

I know it's not going to happen, but I did entertain a brief fantasy in which GW sent a C&D letter to Disney to immediately halt distribution of Aladdin. There'd be fights in the Disney office over which suit got to reply first!

ArbeitsSchu wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:The benefit to the southern hemisphere is simply that wholesalers and retailers in the southern hemisphere should likely see an increase in sales as they will no longer be diluted by imported sales.

Thats optimistic given that consumers outside the EU who have previously used imported sales will be looking at something like 40% increase in their costs. Unless this move is matched by a drop in retail price, I can't see there being a huge uptake in local sales. Certainly doesn't benefit the customers.

I think its unethical... smart given what they're trying to accomplish... but unethical. This is a case of GW putting its wholesale customer base over its end consumer base. GW hears its wholesalers and retailers crying out, that foreign imported sales are driving them out of business... GW has chosen to act to try and preserve those outlets which are bigger customers than any single individual in the southern hemisphere.

Kroothawk wrote:They took the Lamassu option off the shop and now just sell the Manticore.

Damn, why did they back down so quick?
A Lammasu isnt something they came up with (any more than they did the Manticore for that matter) so how come GW get to dictate who gets to make and sell models of it?

Possibly because, while the Lammasu IS a previously existing concept, the Raging Heroes version bore more than a passing resemblance to the older GW version?

Alpharius wrote:Possibly because, while the Lammasu IS a previously existing concept, the Raging Heroes version bore more than a passing resemblance to the older GW version?

There's only so much you can do with:

Wikipedia wrote:often depicted with a bull or lion's body, eagle's wings, and human's head.

Although granted the Lammasu head is a bit of a dead ringer. (especially the braided beard).

Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

When compared to the ancient Mesopotamian statuary representing the lammassu, the only changes GW made were to stylize the horns and make a nose-ringed less humanlike face. Check out the thousands of pictures you can find on Google Images.

Though, that being said, the RH lammassu is pretty darn similar to the GW one.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

It's not a common depiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu

Bull's body, human head, wings, braided beard, horns. Ok it hasn't got the nose ring but the idea of bulls and nose rings going together isn't original...

Assyrians were big on braided beards, it's all over their stuff, I think that inspired GW not the other way around.

Saldiven wrote:

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Think the Assyrians got there with the braided beards some condiderable time before GW.

Show me an Assyrian Lamassu with a braided beard, horns, and a nose ring and we'll talk.

The Lamassu head by Raging Heroes may have been a better sculpted and designed version than GW's, but it built off of GW's original copyrighted concept of what a Lamassu should look like.

When compared to the ancient Mesopotamian statuary representing the lammassu, the only changes GW made were to stylize the horns and make a nose-ringed less humanlike face. Check out the thousands of pictures you can find on Google Images.

Though, that being said, the RH lammassu is pretty darn similar to the GW one.

While GW's art is based on the traditional image, they modified it and added new elements. For example:

GW's has a braided beard that is wider at the bottom than at the top, consisting of multiple braids. The traditional Lamassu has a narrow tapering beard.

They also added a nose-ring and stylized the horns in a way substantially different than that shown in the traditional statues.

These elements constituted a copyright, which Raging Heroes used as a starting point for their Lamassu. The problem is, GW's art was based on public domain art (O.K.), Raging Heroes' was based on copyrighted art (not O.K.)

Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

Well, the Lamassu is clearly a mythological beast from Assur and related cultures with braided beard, bighat, bull body, hooves, even horns.
Hunting this down is a far stretch and not fair for a company with a long history of "borrowing" other ideas



Concerning ethics: Australia currently pays about double world prices, with a further increase of 20-30% around the corner. That's why many Australians bought from Maelstrom and would not accept a 100% price increase relative to Maelstrom prices. Canadas prices also don't reflect the parity to of CDN$ and US$.
Someone said that GW signed a pledge for ethical management or something. Maybe someone can find out, because this might be of interest.

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact:

Games Workshop just asked "Raging Heroes" to stop selling a Lammassu which is a mythical beast from Assur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamassu) also used in D&D. GW once had such a monster for their Chaos Dwarf bighat range which is OOP for a long time, but they seem to intend making a new one for Warhammer Forge. Seems like GW's IP lawyers keep on harassing the industry with unfounded claims.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/collections/complete-collection/products/manticore

That's pretty sad that they folded like a deckchair.

GW aren't called the Evil Empire without reason in other parts of the hobby, it's just absurd. Hopefully the Chapterhouse case will undermine them a bit, but I fear it still won't stop them using their financial might to get their own way through threats.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

I don't dispute that all of those features were present somewhere. And I'm sure you would agree that most literature doesn't invent new words, and even if they did, their copyright wouldn't be limited to those new words.

Copyright can be held in the arrangement and appearance of well-known features if done in a novel way.

I've been thinking over the last day or so, and I think the thing that has hit me hardest is knowing that Kirby owns so many shares and when the company pushes to pay dividends, even borrowing to do so, he's simply trousering a large amount of money.

That is a massive concern, and should be for every shareholder because it's a gravy train for a few people who have little interest in the long term survival of the company other than funnelling profits into their pockets rather than into bolstering the company.

I have very little love for GW, at this point I wouldn't care much if they went bust. Sure I like the universes that they have made, and the models are, objectively speaking, usually very good. Their customer service is good, like you'd expect from a professional company. But I don't play the current game, and all the games I do have they have chosen to no longer support. I largely prefer the older figures so get them at shows and off eBay. I've had all I need from GW. I have loads of books and games, I've got plenty of figures and I do a lot of other things in the hobby. Their prices are outrageous, I have little enthusiasm for even trying this new 'resin' stuff, they've done nothing to engender any loyalty for a long long time due to the total lack of reward in being a customer of theirs. It's been a long time since GW last had a sale, or ran an offer which encouraged some sort of spending. Their hostile approach to other manufacturers and the horror stories from ex-staff make me feel almost dirty to purchase their products.

There's a lot of people still getting joy from GW, and I'll feel bad for them if GW go under because it's a big investment not just in money but in love from people for a hobby, and I would feel bad for all those who lose their jobs. It'll be 'the end of an era' as they say, but the rot set in a long long time ago, and I for one won't shed much of a tear for them.

I think this Lammassu issue is getting off topic insofar as it is being discussed in relation to GW's interactions with Raging Heroes.

In as much as it is a question of what is protectable under copyright, I think the issue is relevant to the Chapterhouse Studios case.

I agree with Biccat that a copyright protects against copying, and Games Workshop's artistic expression of a Lammassu concept would be protectable to some extent. Biccat is correct that the question is whether the accused work is copied from the allegedly copyrighted work. Copyright laws are designed to prevent copying.

However, it is very important to note that a single artistic expression of a Lammassu does not grant ownership of the Lammassu concept. Copyrights never cover concepts, ideas, methods, systems, etc. This necessarily confines the boundaries of any expression of a Lammassu because one could argue that many aspect of a Lammassu expression are inseparable from or inherent in the concept and therefore not protectable.

These elements must necessarily be disregarded when making a determination of whether the accused work is a copy of the allegedly copyrighted work. Case law has provided guidelines about how one defines and determines copying, which have been discussed at length in this and other threads. To refresh our memories, the typical guideline is "substantial similarity" as determined by the "ordinary observer" test, which was first described by Judge Hand in the Peter Pan Fabrics case.

The oft-cited Atari case indicates that unprotectable elements of a copyrighted work must be discounted when making a determination of substantial similarity. So, for example, One should not be able to say that one expression of a Lammassu is copied from another expression of a Lammassu simply because both contain elements that are inherent in the concept of a Lammassu.

What is protectable in a copyright is the author's unique artistic expression, so in a sculpture this could be the posing or overall composition of the work, the artistic details of the braided beard, the muscle structure of the body, etc. We should remember that this is all derived from the notion that a copyright is intended to prevent copying. So, even though the Lammassu concept is widespread, one would easily be able to demonstrate copying if the accused work was literally a copy of the allegedly infringed work. Now, in order to prevent would-be copiers from getting around the law by making insubstantial tweaks to the design, the law has necessarily grown to define copying a little more broadly, i.e. "substantial similarity."

However, one can freely copy that which is in the public domain, either inherently, or because a protectable work has been deliberately placed into the public domain. So, for example, if Games Workshop copied a public domain expression of a Lammassu (I'm not saying it did), it would be perfectly appropriate to copy that copy, which would essentially be nothing more than the same public domain expression.

biccat wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Biccat

Show me where I mentioned horns and a nose ring !

But since you mention these features...

Bullocks invented horns wayyyyy back in evolution, even before men started playing with little dollies.
The Assyrian sculptures have stylised horns on their head gear
Farmers started putting rings in bulls' noses possibly as early as the bronze age.

It is hardly beyond the wit of a designer to add these features to a manbull hybrid without reference to the earlier GW one.

I don't dispute that all of those features were present somewhere. And I'm sure you would agree that most literature doesn't invent new words, and even if they did, their copyright wouldn't be limited to those new words.

Copyright can be held in the arrangement and appearance of well-known features if done in a novel way.

The underlined is the most important point: what we have hear is, sadly, yet another example of GW intimidating a company with the threat of litigation.

Now, perhaps I'm wrong, I haven't seen a picture of GW's old sculpt, perhaps Raging Heroes has baldly copied from it. But the notion that GW can credibly claim copyright over all versions of an ancient concept that also use a nose-ring and a certain style of beard is... an peculiarly broad reading of the relevant law.

While GW's art is based on the traditional image, they modified it and added new elements. For example:

GW's has a braided beard that is wider at the bottom than at the top, consisting of multiple braids. The traditional Lamassu has a narrow tapering beard.

They also added a nose-ring and stylized the horns in a way substantially different than that shown in the traditional statues.

These elements constituted a copyright, which Raging Heroes used as a starting point for their Lamassu. The problem is, GW's art was based on public domain art (O.K.), Raging Heroes' was based on copyrighted art (not O.K.)

The italicized is where you go off the rails: do you have some information that Raging Heroes used the GW sculpt as a reference?

By the by, while I haven't been able to find GW's lamassu, I did find this fellow;

This is not, needless to say, a GW image, but rather the Hunted Lamassu from the MtG expansion Ravnica. The Ravnica lamassu, released in 2005, seems in many respects very close to the RH sculpt, save for the nose ring. Certainly it was available for RH to be inspired by.

Again, without seeing the GW sculpt, it's hard to do more then dispute that the elements recited are sufficiently novel; or, to put it another way, it's very clear that GW cannot claim all non-traditional versions of a lamassu.

Buzzsaw wrote:The italicized is where you go off the rails: do you have some information that Raging Heroes used the GW sculpt as a reference?

To prove liability you have to show:
1) access to the copyrighted work; and
2) substantial similarity between the copyrighted work and the infringing work.

However, if the similarity is "striking," then access can be assumed. I think the similarity between the two is obvious.

Here's GW's Lammasu:


Here's Raging Heroes:


I also see that I missed the lower fangs and banding on the horns.

In my (non-legal) opinion, the two are substantially similar, and may even be described as "strikingly similar."

There are some similarities but also enough differences, including the quality of workmanship, to make me go, "eh?"

GW Sculpt:


vs Ragin Heroes Sculpt:


Does not very similar to me, but I am no lawyer.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:There are some similarities but also enough differences, including the quality of workmanship, to make me go, "eh?"

Just because two things are similar doesn't mean that one of them is original enough to constitute a new, copyrightable work of art.

That's why copyright can be difficult to sort out and why court cases arise over it.

If Raging Heroes had told GW to feth off, and a suit had been brought, they might have won. But being a small hobby company they didn't want to take the risk. That is how GW usually manage to enforce their claimed IPs.

Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

+1. While I support GW's 40k franchise, their IP bullying seems to be getting more and more out of hand.

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

That's an interesting idea, but you'd have to have potential damages in the millions to entice a law firm to take the case. I've actually investigated this possibility, and if enough plaintiffs can be found to push potential damages into the range of 2-3 million, such a lawsuit would be a very real possibility.

I think this is a topic for another thread though. I'm also not sure if these companies would be able to get together on something like this.

How do you prove damages from items you didn't sell in court? Based on previous sales?

weeble1000 wrote:

Mohoc wrote:Maybe it is time for all the US companies that have received C&D letters from GW to file a class action lawsuit against them.

I'm also not sure if these companies would be able to get together on something like this.

That does sound like it could easily become a royal pain to try and organise/keep going efficiently.
It is still a good idea though

Could a company like CHS countersue GW and ask for class action status?

biccat wrote:In my (non-legal) opinion, the two are substantially similar, and may even be described as "strikingly similar."

I'm going to quote from my earlier post for reference:

What is protectable in a copyright is the author's unique artistic expression, so in a sculpture this could be the posing or overall composition of the work, the artistic details of the braided beard, the muscle structure of the body, etc. We should remember that this is all derived from the notion that a copyright is intended to prevent copying. So, even though the Lammassu concept is widespread, one would easily be able to demonstrate copying if the accused work was literally a copy of the allegedly infringed work. Now, in order to prevent would-be copiers from getting around the law by making insubstantial tweaks to the design, the law has necessarily grown to define copying a little more broadly, i.e. "substantial similarity."

As I've said, copyright protects against copying and substantial similarity is intended to only capture insignificant or trivial differences. It is not supposed to capture distinct artistic expressions inspired by or even based on existing copyrighted works. There is indeed a striking similarity between the faces of the two models, but much of what makes these faces strikingly similar is not protectable insofar as it is inherent in the concept of a Lammassu. Furthermore, only comparing the faces igores the entirety of the two works. Copyright law is fuzzy on how and in what circumstances a work can be parsed apart, but the legal question essentially boils down to whether the accused work copies, mind you, copies that which is protectable in the alleged copyright. If the accused work adds something significant to the expression, it should properly be considered a unique artistic expression and not a copy of the alleged copyright.

Granted, all of this is subjective, which makes copyright laws very unpredictable, but if the two works evoke a distinct feeling or meaning, then the accused work should not be considered a copy. This concept is difficult to wrap your head around, but when you look at two works in the context of determining substantial similarity, you must put out of your mind all of that which is not protectable.

This issue of Lammassu sculptures is very similar to two expressions of a natural subject, such as a bird, or a landscape. When you compare one painting of a Robin to another painting of a Robin, you cannot say that the two are similar because they both depict a Robin, even if they depict the same living bird. The subject matter is not protectable. The concept of painting a robin is not protectable, and so on. Therefore, according to Atari, a fact finder is obligated to discount these similarities when determining substantial similarity. How many paintings, photographs, drawings, or written descriptions of the White House, Mount Everest, or Osama bin Laden are strikingly similar? Many of them will necessarily be so. Another example of this concept it Scenes a Faire. One cannot, for example, accuse two femme fatal characters in film noirs to be similar because they are both mysterious seductive women whose charms ensnare the main character and lead him into dangerous and deadly situations.

Does the overall work have a distinct look and feel? That itself should be enough to avoid a finding of substantial similarity. If the accused work has a similar look and feel, that itself does not equate to substantial similarity. It is for this reason that the layperson is specifically not an ordinary observer, in spite of how it may sound. An ordinary observer must, of necessity, be conscious of, understand, and take into account legal findings on what elements of a work are protectable and what is not protectable.

biccat's two step process is technically correct, but it wholly ignores the many nuances involved in establishing those steps and also ignores the vital initial step of determining if a copyright exists, which implicitly involves establishing the boundaries of that copyright.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mohoc wrote:How do you prove damages from items you didn't sell in court? Based on previous sales?

Damage to your business. So it would be important to go through what the potential plaintiff's take in in terms of revenue. This is what eviscerates a class action case like the one you're talking about. Games Workshop goes after small, relatively defenseless companies. These companies typically don't have the kind of revenue which makes for attractive damages, even if the damages were trebled by the judge.

I really think you should start a new thread about this.

I see what the issue with Lamassu is now.
We have all hitherto missed the salient point. Raging Heroes haves used SKULLZ TM on the braidy beard.

Skullz deffo = GW

Thanks for posting the pics of the GW version.
The tusks are more of an issue imh(and non legal)o, and I can see your point more now Biccat.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:I see what the issue with Lamassu is now.
We have all hitherto missed the salient point. Raging Heroes haves used SKULLZ TM on the braidy beard.

Skullz deffo = GW

Thanks for posting the pics of the GW version.
The tusks are more of an issue imh(and non legal)o, and I can see your point more now Biccat.

it does make it a lot more obvious with the pictures for comparison. Still irks me though.

Personally, I see enough differences between the two, even in just the head, neck, and shoulder region to feel that Raging Heroes should have wiped their nether regions with GWs C&D order, filmed it, and sent the video to GW.

Best of luck to ChapterHouse and Paulson... and any others that GW decides to bully.

I believe there are two tests to show infringement, extrinsic where violating aspects are highlighted and intrinsic where the jury is asked to decide whether an ordinary person could confuse the two works as being substantially the same.

Legal types feel free to correct me.

1.) Obviously both heads are inspired by the mythical beast from Assur. All general features derive from that.
2.) The two head share even more similarities. But the Raging Heroes head is also considerably different, is not a copy, having a lot of obvious originality, not to speak of higher sculpting quality.
3.) The earlier AD&D Lammasu is a good creature (the MtG Lammasu is later than GW's). What is the standard procedure to make a Chaos version? Add demon horns and tusks.

I'm just sad that I missed out on my chance to buy RH's Lammasu - too late now, all gone... like tears in rain.

Having said that, lets try and get back on topic!

Alpharius wrote:I'm just sad that I missed out on my chance to buy RH's Lammasu - too late now, all gone... like tears in rain.

Having said that, lets try and get back on topic!

Shoot 'em an email, they might have some stock they'd be willing to part with at discount.

Alpharius wrote:I'm just sad that I missed out on my chance to buy RH's Lammasu - too late now, all gone... like tears in rain.

Having said that, lets try and get back on topic!

Don't mourn too much Alpharius, I have a feeling that if CHS win this, that Lammasu will reappear on their website quicker than you can imagine.

Do you think that GW have envisaged loosing this so bad thgat their trying to recoup their losses through the recent price rises?



Cheers

Andrew

GW's price increases are part of a long tradition of price increases. I kind of wish they had as much sense as Privateer Press and would feel like they should explain things to their customer/fan base.

I remember that a while ago, they had a "price adjustment" which meant a significant price increase on everything except a few overpriced special characters that no one wanted and no one bought. Those mini (there were like two of them) decreased in price a tiny bit. When they talked about said price "adjustment" there were a lot of references to those minis.


Anyway, I'm not sure that they think they'll be losing so much money in this law suit. They haven't caused any amount of damage to Chapterhouse that would be significant for them. Punitive damages would be huge for Chapterhouse, and they would be large enough for Games Workshop that they should start thinking twice before bullying larger companies.

It would be interesting to see some kind of class action suit from all of the small companies that have been bullied. I wonder how strong the legal ground for that would be.

Official statement is up:

No More Lamassu

posted May 19, 2011

It is with our deepest regret that we have to announce that the Lamassu head is no more part of our Manticore kit We recently received an email from a Games Workshop attorney claiming that our Lamassu head was too similar to their Chaos Dwarves' Lamasu and asking us to stop selling this head. At this point in time we don’t have the time to further investigate this mater and so we've decided to currently withdraw the Lamassu head from sale, either online or in shop. We are sorry if you were planning to get one. So please note that at this point in time THERE IS NO MORE LAMASSU HEAD available with our Manticore kit.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/blogs/news/3241852-no-more-lamassu

Don't suppose this is the right time to make jokes about no more Lamassu head. :(

This is a real shame. Loved the concept drawings and the sculpt.

Hey, we noticed there are a few likenesses in your lamassu when compared to our crappy 20 year old sculpt, especially since you used skulls and everybody knows that skulls were invented by GW so we'd like for you to stop selling your model because it's too close to one that we don't sell anymore. BTW, do you like our nice runon sentence?
Much Love,

GW Legal Department

ps, if you have any extras of those lying around please send them to us so we can "research" them further.

Its about as strikingly similar as if my children tried to make a lammassu out of Play-Do.

Actually no, my children would make a better mythological creature than GW did.

Maybe someone should make a new line of Squats and see if GW admit they once did?

Have they tried to copyright the individual elements of "Space" and "Marine" yet?

The head does look really really similar.

Two works of art can look very similar without one necessarily being a copyright violating copy of the other.

The difficulty is that you have to have an expensive court case to determine it.

Small companies like Raging H do not have the time and money to defend themselves against GW.

This is bizarre. Its like a reversal of the Chapterhouse "That Eldar Farseer doesn't look anything like an Eldar Farseer" rubbish. It seems that GW have even managed to pervert the power of sight to their cause.

Mr Hyena wrote:The head does look really really similar.

Like how a sow's ear looks exactly like a silk purse?

ArbeitsSchu wrote:This is bizarre. Its like a reversal of the Chapterhouse "That Eldar Farseer doesn't look anything like an Eldar Farseer" rubbish. It seems that GW have even managed to pervert the power of sight to their cause.

Or maybe Raging Heroes just isn't interested in starting up a whole thing, when they can (as they've proven) just make a new, fairly different head that still retains the overall quality of their line.

Or hell, maybe they feel they can't contest it under the laws where their company is based(France).

George Spiggott wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:The head does look really really similar.

Like how a sow's ear looks exactly like a silk purse?

More like "blatantly copied" really.

Oh and before the inevitable: that is, in no way, a defense of GW asking them to stop production on it. It looked kind of like the old GW production, but at the same time there was a noticeably different 'feel'.

Kanluwen wrote:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:This is bizarre. Its like a reversal of the Chapterhouse "That Eldar Farseer doesn't look anything like an Eldar Farseer" rubbish. It seems that GW have even managed to pervert the power of sight to their cause.

Or maybe Raging Heroes just isn't interested in starting up a whole thing, when they can (as they've proven) just make a new, fairly different head that still retains the overall quality of their line.

Or hell, maybe they feel they can't contest it under the laws where their company is based(France).

Just to clarify: I'm commenting on people claiming the two look "really really the same". The CH Farseer looks like a Farseer, but some people try to insist that it looks hugely different. Now people are trying to insist that the RH Lammassu looks loads like the GW Play-Do-Ssu when it just doesn't. Quite apart from the epic leap in quality, it resembles the GW lammassu only in that it looks a) like a lammassu (the mythological beast) and b) it looks like a beardy tusk-man/flying bull combination.

Whether RH choose to dispute this is down to them, but any court that finds "striking similarity" in these two is going to have to also take issue with Ancient Abyssinia and I'll have to shave my beard just in case GW sue me for "having a beard."

OK, once again - everyone take a look at the title of this thread and please try to stay on topic.

Please start a new thread about RH, GW and The Lamassu, if you'd like.

Thanks!

Not to drag the thread off topic again, but there is a very interesting point to be made concerning both the similarities and the differences in the CHS/Paulson case and the example of RH receiving a C&D e-mail from GW:

ArbeitsSchu wrote:This is bizarre. Its like a reversal of the Chapterhouse "That Eldar Farseer doesn't look anything like an Eldar Farseer" rubbish. It seems that GW have even managed to pervert the power of sight to their cause.

This is the disparity in the legal system(s), where one party has deep pockets and can harrass the other party into capitulation. The only offset to this is where the smaller party is able to secure free (or really cheap) representation.

Also, while it is interesting to do a comparison between CHS and Paulson's circumstances versus RH's, there is a distinct difference. IIRC, RH is a European company, and I have a feeling that GW has a greater level of protections and privileges than it would in an American court. Add to this that regardless of whatever happens in the CHS case, this will have no bearing at all legally on what GW is still able to do in regard to its typical practices in Europe.

I have never taken a comparitive legal studies course, but I have a feeling that at least in parts of Europe, and possibly particularly in the UK, wealth has a much greater impact on access to the courts. I never really considered that until recently, when I read an article about the practice of the wealthy in the UK being able to obtain "private injunctions" against newspapers, etc., about publishing any stories about them, simply by hiring an attorney and forking out about 100k to ask the court to impose this injunction. This would not be possible in the U.S.

The overall point I am trying to make is that there are two very different sets of legal rules in play, and you could conceivably have the exact same fact pattern, but still end up with two very different results. And too, there might very well be similar laws in play, but the overiding factor may again be the ability to secure representation. GW can, and most of the small operators cannot. You see this pattern repeated over and over again; and GW realizes this, and so it acts with impunity.

Eldanar,

While I think you are completely right in that a US precedent is not a UK precendent the legal systems have a lot more similarities than differences. I do think that the CHS/GW case is being watched carefully regardless of nationality and a loss in US is going to make others seriously reconsider easy capitulation.

GW brought this case, they are the plantif, they forced a jury trial and now it would seem the best case scenario is to settle out of court. The holier than thou image has slipped in one of the most litiginous countries in the world. GWs position does have advantages in the UK that they don't have in the US, but now people will be asking is that position as unassailable as GW makes out. And on receipt of a C&D letter they may be getting the reply now, of "How does it infringe on your IP, how can I change it so that it doesn't"

If GW can't actually point to a specific piece and say "that" much in the way they said "CHS knows how they broke our IP" I would be responding that the C&D is a paper tiger to try and force you to desist.

Saying that's infringing doesn't seem to be valid any more, and unless GW can say exactly why it's infringing then my view is that they are just chancing their arm with a threat of deep pockets.

Cheers

Andrew

Will defer to those with superior and more up to date knowledge but from what I remember of Common Law studies back in the stone age, that is pretty much correct.
While US cases do not set binding precedent, it can be considered in a UK court.

Mr Hyena wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:The head does look really really similar.

Like how a sow's ear looks exactly like a silk purse?

More like "blatantly copied" really.

They're legally allowed to do what they did, even if GW says otherwise, so I'm not going into that. I'm going to talk about the ethics first. Its all variation on a theme, if people in the past had this same sort of perspective you're claiming, every representation of Jesus or whatever else in classic artworks would have to be entirely different. They aren't, and for the longest time there was actually the notion of a refinement of concepts, where there was the express expectation of portions of original works coming in some part from existing works. The ethical belief that Raging Heroes shouldn't have done this is an entirely fictitious notion that stem from year of companies like GW imposing a false sense of super entitlement.

Just because two things look alike doesn't mean the first instance is some how more in the right. IF, GW some how went to court and won, restitution and remedy would be sooooo drastically reduced because of the incredibly derivative nature of their work. I think people confuse alot of the subtleties here in that GW's representation of a Lamassu, isn't part of its IP, it can't ever completely be. There is a distinction between unique IP, and an original stylized version of a preexisting concept. Such a work is only really protected in its unique instance, such as stopping someone from recasting it or use without reinterpretation... or trade dress. Stylizing a lamassu similar to GW isn't the same as copying their exact interpretation; as it is as much a stylized interpretation to the original concept as it maybe from GW's.

The idea that because Raging Heroes made this *gasp* to provide a service and make money should have no bearing on this. At best this fact is only relevant so far as if restitution were a hypothetical possibility.

As far as the similarities between the GW model and Raging Heroes' the interpretations people have given are rather superficial, looking at only the similarities of specific features while disregarding many differences. First the most blatant thing is Raging Heroes' Lamassu model shares a common body with a Manticore model... GW's is a bull's body... by volume that's almost 80% of the model. The riders are distinctly different, that's another 10% difference. Then we have the heads... the only part people have bothered to talk about; how similar in size are the heads? The Raging Heroes' head has shorter horns; it has a mane and not a perm; it has braided beard instead of just a curly beard; it has adornment on the tips of its beard, GW's doesn't; it has forehead ridges, GW's doesn't; and it has protrusions that wrap the base of the horns, GW's doesn't. That means at best GW's claims hinges on only about 4% similarity. My tablet PC has more than that to a IPad. I would call that a passing superficial similarity and easily enough to say the remaining differences are a by product of common themes, inspiration, and use. Even if Raging Heroes admitted to trying to copy GW and to take their sales with this model, that is irrelevant and its an expectation of competition that competitors will try to match and surpass you... even still the similarities are too immaterial.

Paulson's answer to the complaint is up.

Here's some highlights, but it is otherwise mostly that Paulson lacks sufficient information and therefore denies the claim.

ANSWER: Paulson denies any copying as alleged in paragraph 36. Because Plaintiff has
failed to identify what products infringe what copyright(s), Paulson lacks sufficient information
to admit or deny the allegations in paragraph 36 and therefore denies them.

ANSWER: Paulson lacks sufficient information as to the allegations in paragraph 37,
and therefore denies them. Paulson lacks sufficient information regarding the other defendant
and, therefore, denies the allegations referring to the other defendant.

And as expected, Paulson has made essentially the same affirmative defenses as Chapterhouse Studios:

This court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over claims to enforce U.S. copyrights for
which GW has not obtained, or has not pleaded ownership of, copyright registrations.
GW's copyright claims are barred because GW lacks standing to enforce copyrights it
does not own.
GW's copyright claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.
GW's copyright claims are barred by the de minimis doctrine.
GW's copyright claims are barred by the doctrine of independent creation.
GW's claims are barred by its failure to join indispensable parties.
GW's claims are barred by consent, waiver, acquiescence or license.
GW's claims are barred by relevant statutes of limitations.
GW's claims are barred by laches.
GW's claims are barred by res judicata.
GW's claims are barred by estoppel.
GW's claims are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse.
GW's claims are barred as to any of its actions that violate any unfair competition laws.
GW's claims are barred due to its unclean hands.
GW's claims are barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
GW's claims are barred by its failure to mitigate damages.
GW's claims to statutory damages are limited or barred by the United States Constitution.
GW's claims to treble damages are barred because at all times Paulson has acted
without malice and with a good faith belief that its actions were proper.

And he has sought attorney's fees:

Paulson seeks relief as follows:
That the Court enter judgment for Paulson and against GW on all causes of action; That the
Court award Paulson costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees; and
That the Court award such other relief as is just and equitable.

This is pretty much the CHS answer expect that Paulson is of course denying any connection to CHS.

I know this will make me sound like a GW hater but I had to giggle when I read that.

Thanks Weeble.

Just to be clear, you always say all of that stuff in every answer no matter the merits. This is because you have to claim affirmative defenses whether you will actually use them or not because you can lose them otherwise.

Manchu wrote:Just to be clear, you always say all of that stuff in every answer no matter the merits. This is because you have to claim affirmative defenses whether you will actually use them or not because you can lose them otherwise.

There's still the requirement that you have a good faith belief in the truth of the comments submitted.

How Paulson can claim a defense of res judicata is beyond me. Is there another case I'm missing?

(res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when a plaintiff tries to sue a defendant a second time over the same facts, seeking alternative relief.)

Ya, I don't know biccat. Admittedly, there's plenty of facts that we're not aware of. Who knows. The only thing different about the claims made by Paulson and CHS is that Paulson didn't mention state law claims being preempted by federal law and he didn't mention the Lanham Act.

I'd really like to see GW's answers to Chaptehouse's interrogatories, but that's privileged.

Will we see them once the case is settled?

Andrew

No, I don't think so. If the case doesn't settle anytime soon, we'll likely see some of those facts come out in motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgement, and the various memorandums and responses.

What does a court docket contain? Just filings, or does it include transcripts of the court room arguments?

biccat wrote:
How Paulson can claim a defense of res judicata is beyond me. Is there another case I'm missing?

(res judicata, or claim preclusion, is invoked when a plaintiff tries to sue a defendant a second time over the same facts, seeking alternative relief.)

They may have felt some part of GW's claims were too redundant. That something wasn't enough of a separate claim but was notionally stated twice.

Mohoc wrote:What does a court docket contain? Just filings, or does it include transcripts of the court room arguments?

Filings. It doesn't contain transcripts. It's just the public record of court proceedings. Anything that's privileged and confidential won't show up on the docket. However, I believe you can request open court transcripts from the court. I've never done this before, so I'm not sure if you have to be an attorney involved in the case to get access to these documents.

If you lived in Chicago, you could go to court when the parties present filings, but I think it would wind up being rather boring. However, sometimes interesting things aren't apparent from the docket, such as Judge Kennelly requiring Games Workshop to respond to early discovery. The minute entry simply read:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:Motion to dismiss [35] is
denied for the reasons stated in open court. Status hearing held and continued to 5/11/2011
at 09:30 AM. Answer to amended complaint is to be filed by 4/20/2011.

The "reasons stated in open court" were that Judge Kennelly dismissed the motion but required Games Workshop to respond to early discovery. Had one been in court that morning, you would have been able to hear exactly what Judge Kennelly said, and the court reporter should have made a transcript of it, but all that got posted to the docket was the minute entry.

Kroothawk wrote:Official statement is up:

No More Lamassu

posted May 19, 2011

It is with our deepest regret that we have to announce that the Lamassu head is no more part of our Manticore kit We recently received an email from a Games Workshop attorney claiming that our Lamassu head was too similar to their Chaos Dwarves' Lamasu and asking us to stop selling this head. At this point in time we don’t have the time to further investigate this mater and so we've decided to currently withdraw the Lamassu head from sale, either online or in shop. We are sorry if you were planning to get one. So please note that at this point in time THERE IS NO MORE LAMASSU HEAD available with our Manticore kit.

http://www.ragingheroes.com/blogs/news/3241852-no-more-lamassu

Ok



Whats next a cease and desist to Nebuchadnezzar?

Once again guys, take the RH v. GW talk to the thread that already exists.

Please keep this one about "Chapterhouse Lawsuit update- motion to dismiss".

So any updates on the matter?

None past Paulson's answer. Things are chugging along, but there likely ins't going to be a substantive update every week. There's a status conference scheduled for next week. Generally speaking, it is in the interest of the Defendants for this to drag out.

This case is most likely going to settle out, but I personally hope it goes on long enough for the Defendants to start deposing GW employees.

I suppose we're going to find out exactly how large GWs corporate ego is before they realize that they don't have much of a case (my opinion) and beg CH to drop it.

Weeble, how would GW attempting to drop the case affect CHs counter?

I really hope Paulson on CHS wins. GW stomping out the little men is getting over the top. I fail to see what the big deal is when you still have to buy GW's stuff to even assemble a Space Marine. I do think the Farseer is a bit much as far as IP infringement goes.

agnosto wrote:Weeble, how would GW attempting to drop the case affect CHs counter?

It wouldn't eliminate the counter claims as they exist separately from Games Workshop's claims, as far as I understand. For some, like unfair competition, etc. it would support those claims as they first require a favorable outcome for the Defendant. In other words, GW is in a pickle and the Defendants are playing hard(er) ball. basically, Games Workshop can no longer simply back away as it would still have counter claims to deal with. What Games Workshop can do, and will likely do, is to negotiate a settlement with the Defendants. However, the Defendants have little to lose by going to court and their attorneys are smart, experienced, effective, and playing to win. I suspect that Games Workshop would have to swallow the puppy in order to get a settlement negotiation worked out.

The most elegant way for Games Workshop to slide out of this suit is to get Judge Kennelly to dismiss the case without prejudice.

weeble1000 wrote:The most elegant way for Games Workshop to slide out of this suit is to get Judge Kennelly to dismiss the case without prejudice.

If I were a judge, if it became clear that a plaintiff's strategy was to get their own case dismissed, there's no way I would dismiss it without prejudice. My thought process would be this: Have your crap together before you file the suit in the first place; if you can't do that, I'm not going to reward you with getting a potential second chance.

US courts are entirely too backed up with pending litigation to let plaintiffs make half-donkeyed efforts when filing suit.

For a laymen, how would that work and would be the consequences?

I cant stand a bully, so I'm hopeful GW retains it's hubris and lets this go to trial. They need to get spanked, hard.

GW wouldnt know a thing about "elegant", hopefully the judge gets a chance to see their practice history for what it is.

Kilkrazy wrote:For a laymen, how would that work and would be the consequences?

Simply put, if a suit is dismissed without prejudice, it means that the plaintiff can attempt to refile the same suit again at a later date.

So, if GW realizes that they were caught with their pants down, but think they could put together a winning suit with more time, they might want to have the suit dismissed without prejudice. This would give them virtually unlimited time to get their stuff together to file a more effective claim.

At least, that's my understanding from talking to my brother who practices law. I could be totally off the mark.

That sounds like having your cake and eating it too.

I presume that if GW attempted that course of action, CH would have the opportunity to ask to settle the case on its merits as presented.

OK, so in that case, how would they go about it? and how easy/difficult is it to get the case dismissed without prejudice?
(thanks for the quick reply before btw)

weeble1000 wrote:

agnosto wrote:Weeble, how would GW attempting to drop the case affect CHs counter?

It wouldn't eliminate the counter claims as they exist separately from Games Workshop's claims, as far as I understand. For some, like unfair competition, etc. it would support those claims as they first require a favorable outcome for the Defendant. In other words, GW is in a pickle and the Defendants are playing hard(er) ball. basically, Games Workshop can no longer simply back away as it would still have counter claims to deal with. What Games Workshop can do, and will likely do, is to negotiate a settlement with the Defendants. However, the Defendants have little to lose by going to court and their attorneys are smart, experienced, effective, and playing to win. I suspect that Games Workshop would have to swallow the puppy in order to get a settlement negotiation worked out.

The most elegant way for Games Workshop to slide out of this suit is to get Judge Kennelly to dismiss the case without prejudice.

I agree that I don't see CH's attorneys agreeing to a settlement unless it was uber-fantastic or unless they thought they couldn't win. Based upon the info. that you and our other resident legal eagles have provided, it doesn't sound like GW has their gack together enough to pull out a win.

From the actions that Kennelly has taken so far, I honestly don't see GW getting a dismissal without prejudice. The action so far has struck me as the judge basically saying that he thinks GW's bluff got called but is willing to give them a chance to prove their case since they weren't exactly well prepared with initial filings.

Games Workshop would have a hard time directly convincing the Judge to dismiss the case without prejudice. I don't think that's something you can really ask for.

For Judge Kennelly, dismissing the case without prejudice is a conservative solution that would not require him to stick his neck out too far or render any written opinions. It is possible that Games Workshop could be attempting to strategically move towards a dismissal without prejudice by continuing to fail at specifying its claims.

Such a dismissal would probably amount to Judge Kennelly saying, "Look guys, I don't have enough information to make a clean decision about the merits of this case. It looks like you might have a case, but what you're presenting to me doesn't get you there. I don't want to nip this thing in the bud, so I'm going to grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss. Come back later when you've got your stuff together or don't come back at all. This Court does not have time for these shenanigans."

Is this what Judge Kennelly will do? I have no idea, but I think it is one possibility. At this point it rests on too many assumptions. For example, we don't even know what interrogatories Chapterhouse Studios sent to Games Workshop and we don't know what Games Workshop's responses were. I also don't know much about Judge Kennelly personally. And we don't know what Games Workshop's strategy is.

However, one can infer that a possible reason for Games Workshop's appalling First Amended Complaint was part of a strategy aimed at getting the case dismissed.

That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Revenent Reiko wrote:That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Yeah, but if it works, it'll turn out to be a pretty brilliant strategic victory for GW. It would give them a couple of advantages. Firstly, if GW really believes they have a legitimate legal case, it would give them time to put together a better argument for the courts before they file the suit again.

Secondly, if GW doesn't honestly believe in the legality of their claim, the dismissal would not establish a precedent that would impact their ability to win suits in the future. This lack of a precedent would allow GW to continue with their tactic of bullying smaller companies who even remotely brush against GW's IP.

Saldiven wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Yeah, but if it works, it'll turn out to be a pretty brilliant strategic victory for GW. It would give them a couple of advantages. Firstly, if GW really believes they have a legitimate legal case, it would give them time to put together a better argument for the courts before they file the suit again.

Secondly, if GW doesn't honestly believe in the legality of their claim, the dismissal would not establish a precedent that would impact their ability to win suits in the future. This lack of a precedent would allow GW to continue with their tactic of bullying smaller companies who even remotely brush against GW's IP.

And that is exactly why i hope it doesnt happen, it would be a tactical win for them.


Please, please Judge Kennedy, do not give in to GWs BS.

weeble1000 wrote:This case is most likely going to settle out, but I personally hope it goes on long enough for the Defendants to start deposing GW employees.

Agreed.

Oh, wait, you're talking about deposing them during depositions. I was thinking of the other meaning of "depose."

weeble1000 wrote:The most elegant way for Games Workshop to slide out of this suit is to get Judge Kennelly to dismiss the case without prejudice.

I think that's pretty unlikely (as was said above). While a first complaint may be dismissed without prejudice before an answer is filed, it would be surprising for a court to dismiss an amended complaint without prejudice after a response and motion to dismiss have been filed.

Saldiven wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Yeah, but if it works, it'll turn out to be a pretty brilliant strategic victory for GW. It would give them a couple of advantages. Firstly, if GW really believes they have a legitimate legal case, it would give them time to put together a better argument for the courts before they file the suit again.

Secondly, if GW doesn't honestly believe in the legality of their claim, the dismissal would not establish a precedent that would impact their ability to win suits in the future. This lack of a precedent would allow GW to continue with their tactic of bullying smaller companies who even remotely brush against GW's IP.

It is a bit of a stretch to call any of GW's moves to date in this case 'brilliant', don't you think?

They had PLENTY of time to put together a legitimate case, and yet the didn't.

If anything, this has been nothing but bad news for GW, as it shows that you can in fact make 'after market' parts for GW models, and GW's saber rattling is just that...

Alpharius wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Yeah, but if it works, it'll turn out to be a pretty brilliant strategic victory for GW. It would give them a couple of advantages. Firstly, if GW really believes they have a legitimate legal case, it would give them time to put together a better argument for the courts before they file the suit again.

Secondly, if GW doesn't honestly believe in the legality of their claim, the dismissal would not establish a precedent that would impact their ability to win suits in the future. This lack of a precedent would allow GW to continue with their tactic of bullying smaller companies who even remotely brush against GW's IP.

It is a bit of a stretch to call any of GW's moves to date in this case 'brilliant', don't you think?

They had PLENTY of time to put together a legitimate case, and yet the didn't.

Do you really think that?
There was no way to foresee CH getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm, nor to see CH actually not folding like the European companies that GW has gone after in the past have done.

If anything, this has been nothing but bad news for GW, as it shows that you can in fact make 'after market' parts for GW models, and GW's saber rattling is just that...

Ehhh. It shows nothing like that really.

It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Kanluwen wrote:
It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Which doesn't say a whole lot about our judicial system. It's like saying you can only get a fair shake in court if you've got the money for top-notch representation.

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Which doesn't say a whole lot about our judicial system. It's like saying you can only get a fair shake in court if you've got the money for top-notch representation.

I wouldn't say that. But the top-notch defense representation usually knows how to drag it out and make it as painful as possible for the plaintiff.

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't say that. But the top-notch defense representation usually knows how to drag it out and make it as painful as possible for the plaintiff.

Which isn't necessarily true in this instance as it was the poorly written claims from GW that made the judge tell them to take it back and redo their work and try to be specific. Who wins doesn't matter to me but you have to admit that GW's legal representatives got caught with their pants down on this one as they didn't expect a fight at all.

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't say that. But the top-notch defense representation usually knows how to drag it out and make it as painful as possible for the plaintiff.

Which isn't necessarily true in this instance as it was the poorly written claims from GW that made the judge tell them to take it back and redo their work and try to be specific. Who wins doesn't matter to me but you have to admit that GW's legal representatives got caught with their pants down on this one as they didn't expect a fight at all.

Which was kind of my point. This proves nothing for or against Chapterhouse other than the fact that they didn't back down and seemingly are the first US based company to be gone after by GW.

Kanluwen wrote:Which was kind of my point. This proves nothing for or against Chapterhouse other than the fact that they didn't back down and seemingly are the first US based company to be gone after by GW.

Well, GW has served C&Ds on other US based organizations (Boardgame Geeks was one). Up until now, GW has had it pretty easy since noone else has stood up to them. Personally, I see this one going the distance to a final decision as GW doesn't care about PR and there's likely to be little backlash anyway since the plastic crack addicts will buy no matter what GW does. They have to protect what they see as their IP and CH doesn't want to just close up shop so it's going to be a fight.

As to how long it will take to get through the court system. So far CH's representatives have just asked that the claims be specific and that they be proven, the judge agreed and actually went a step further in his directions; I haven't seen anything posted here that could be construed as delay tactics by the defense, it's just taking as long as it takes. The pace is set by the judge and the rules of the system.

Additionally, any delays won't necessarily cost GW anything since charges are usually by the hour worked not by the time it takes to get assigned space on a docket.

Kanluwen wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

Revenent Reiko wrote:That seems like a really move on GWs part if that is the case.

Yeah, but if it works, it'll turn out to be a pretty brilliant strategic victory for GW. It would give them a couple of advantages. Firstly, if GW really believes they have a legitimate legal case, it would give them time to put together a better argument for the courts before they file the suit again.

Secondly, if GW doesn't honestly believe in the legality of their claim, the dismissal would not establish a precedent that would impact their ability to win suits in the future. This lack of a precedent would allow GW to continue with their tactic of bullying smaller companies who even remotely brush against GW's IP.

It is a bit of a stretch to call any of GW's moves to date in this case 'brilliant', don't you think?

They had PLENTY of time to put together a legitimate case, and yet the didn't.

Do you really think that?

Yes, I do - that's why I... wrote it?

Kanluwen wrote:

There was no way to foresee CH getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm, nor to see CH actually not folding like the European companies that GW has gone after in the past have done.

If anything, this has been nothing but bad news for GW, as it shows that you can in fact make 'after market' parts for GW models, and GW's saber rattling is just that...

Ehhh. It shows nothing like that really.

It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

If that really is the thought process behind GW Legal's strategy, you realize how stupid that makes them, right?

If this was ONLY ever straight up bullying tactics, and it is starting to appear as if it was, GW was acting more than a little negligently, and now it looks as if they might pay the price for it.

I really do hope GW get's spanked. And this is coming from one of the "plastic crack addicts".

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Which doesn't say a whole lot about our judicial system. It's like saying you can only get a fair shake in court if you've got the money for top-notch representation.

Actually, I think it suggests the opposite. It shows that there are a lot of attoneys, even top notch white-shoe law firm attorneys, who take their constitutional duties seriously and are willing to represent a client for little or no fees upon occasion.

CHS got the legal equivalent of winning the lottery when it's attorneys signed on. Paulson as well. The weird thing is you usually don't see pro bono representation in commercial claims, so that is what makes this circumstance, at least to me, so interesting.

Eldanar wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Which doesn't say a whole lot about our judicial system. It's like saying you can only get a fair shake in court if you've got the money for top-notch representation.

Actually, I think it suggests the opposite. It shows that there are a lot of attoneys, even top notch white-shoe law firm attorneys, who take their constitutional duties seriously and are willing to represent a client for little or no fees upon occasion.

CHS got the legal equivalent of winning the lottery when it's attorneys signed on. Paulson as well. The weird thing is you usually don't see pro bono representation in commercial claims, so that is what makes this circumstance, at least to me, so interesting.

I like you, you're a glass half-full person. What I meant by my statement is that it's sad that you need big money to get quality representation (or nearly any for that matter). There wouldn't be a need for "winning the lottery" if everyone got a fair shake in court regardless of their personal wealth.

agnosto wrote:

Eldanar wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

Which doesn't say a whole lot about our judicial system. It's like saying you can only get a fair shake in court if you've got the money for top-notch representation.

Actually, I think it suggests the opposite. It shows that there are a lot of attoneys, even top notch white-shoe law firm attorneys, who take their constitutional duties seriously and are willing to represent a client for little or no fees upon occasion.

CHS got the legal equivalent of winning the lottery when it's attorneys signed on. Paulson as well. The weird thing is you usually don't see pro bono representation in commercial claims, so that is what makes this circumstance, at least to me, so interesting.

I like you, your a glass half-full person. What I meant by my statement is that it's sad that you need big money to get quality representation (or nearly any for that matter). There wouldn't be a need for "winning the lottery" if everyone got a fair shake in court regardless of their personal wealth.

ahh dreams of a pre-reagan america where corperations didn't have the same rights as people, where congressmen wrote the laws instead of being handed them by lobbyist and told what to vote on based on who contributed to thier campaign... and when we had a working progressive tax code instead of a code with so many loopholes and breaks that if you can afford a good accountant you don't pay much if any and can see companies like GE get billions in tax refundsAFTER actually making huge profits /rant

but yea on topic i hope chapter house eats GW for breakfast I'd love to have cheaper minis and other companies to be able to sell compatable minis and acessorieswith 40k stuff it'd be good for the hobby. people will always buy the books from GW but with the prices where they and and the pending price hike it is getting rediculous what we have to pay for a few quarters worth of resin

G00fySmiley wrote:ahh dreams of a pre-reagan america where corperations didn't have the same rights as people, where congressmen wrote the laws instead of being handed them by lobbyist and told what to vote on based on who contributed to thier campaign... and when we had a working progressive tax code instead of a code with so many loopholes and breaks that if you can afford a good accountant you don't pay much if any and can see companies like GE get billions in tax refundsAFTER actually making huge profits /rant

+1. Word.

I understood what you meant, agnosto, and think your concerns are justified. Attorneys, in many cases deservedly so, are pilloried every day for being money-grubbing ambulance chasers. However, the general public sees very little of the amount of pro bono work that is done by private attorneys; or in my current case, how much behind-the-scenes work is done by public attorneys.

Most pro bono work is in the areas of criminal law, probate, inheritance, housing, etc. It is basically set up to help indigent parties. The novel thing about this case is there are two seperate high-street law firms that have stepped forward in what would otherwise appear to be a fairly silly commercial claim. Add to this that there are some novel theories of law at play.

Eldanar wrote:I understood what you meant, agnosto, and think your concerns are justified. Attorneys, in many cases deservedly so, are pilloried every day for being money-grubbing ambulance chasers. However, the general public sees very little of the amount of pro bono work that is done by private attorneys; or in my current case, how much behind-the-scenes work is done by public attorneys.

Most pro bono work is in the areas of criminal law, probate, inheritance, housing, etc. It is basically set up to help indigent parties. The novel thing about this case is there are two seperate high-street law firms that have stepped forward in what would otherwise appear to be a fairly silly commercial claim. Add to this that there are some novel theories of law at play.

Yeah, I have worked for and known many in the lawyerly profession over the years; they're a group of hard-working individuals by and large which is the reason I didn't go to law school myself, I actually wanted a home life.

You're right, it is odd how two, fairly high profile, legal offices have taken up the collective cause vs. GW. I believe it was stated earlier in the thread, and rightly so, that it is probably because they want to be in on a precedent setting case. If that is the motive, I doubt we'll see a settlement.

I would like to see precedent set giving small firms the right to produce add on's.
Or even complete figures.

Kanluwen wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't say that. But the top-notch defense representation usually knows how to drag it out and make it as painful as possible for the plaintiff.

Which isn't necessarily true in this instance as it was the poorly written claims from GW that made the judge tell them to take it back and redo their work and try to be specific. Who wins doesn't matter to me but you have to admit that GW's legal representatives got caught with their pants down on this one as they didn't expect a fight at all.

Which was kind of my point. This proves nothing for or against Chapterhouse other than the fact that they didn't back down and seemingly are the first US based company to be gone after by GW.

The head barrister at the international company where I work always used to say you should never threaten to sue until you are completely prepared to follow up on your threat.

GW clearly weren't.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:I wouldn't say that. But the top-notch defense representation usually knows how to drag it out and make it as painful as possible for the plaintiff.

Which isn't necessarily true in this instance as it was the poorly written claims from GW that made the judge tell them to take it back and redo their work and try to be specific. Who wins doesn't matter to me but you have to admit that GW's legal representatives got caught with their pants down on this one as they didn't expect a fight at all.

Which was kind of my point. This proves nothing for or against Chapterhouse other than the fact that they didn't back down and seemingly are the first US based company to be gone after by GW.

The head barrister at the international company where I work always used to say you should never threaten to sue until you are completely prepared to follow up on your threat.

GW clearly weren't.

Pretty much spot on KK - looks like GW got caught red-handed here...

Wait..
They got caught red handed with their pants down?

What WERE they doing!?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Wait..
They got caught red handed with their pants down?

What WERE they doing!?

Ew.

Eldanar wrote:top notch white-shoe law firm attorneys

White-shoe? I've not come across this term before...

Saldiven wrote:

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Wait..
They got caught red handed with their pants down?

What WERE they doing!?

Ew.

Is that what makes Finecast "special" and "unique"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tantras wrote:

Eldanar wrote:top notch white-shoe law firm attorneys

White-shoe? I've not come across this term before...

Its an American term, basically for those high paid lawyers who tend to come from higher tiered universities... working for the top firms and favored by the white shoe wearing stereotypical New England rich.-see Thurston Howell III of Giligan's Island...

I've lived in New England most of my life, and while I certainly am not rich, I don't think I've ever seen any White Shoes around these parts!

Oh, and we don't sound like Hollywood thinks we sound either...

Anyway, back OT - it seems as if GW seriously miscalculated here, and it seems as if the judge wants to give them a chance to clean up their filing, but if they're unable to do so, it seems as if he'll have little choice but to find against them, to some degree.

That will be oddly amusing... Everyone likes the underdog.

(Well, most everyone.)

Kanluwen wrote:There was no way to foresee CH getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm, nor to see CH actually not folding like the European companies that GW has gone after in the past have done.

Kan, your statement says absolutely nothing about the validity of GWs' case.

Ehhh. It shows nothing like that really.

It shows that Chapterhouse got really really fething lucky in getting pro bono representation from a top IP firm. It's quite likely that if the pro bono hadn't shown up, this would have been done a lot faster.

And what this says is that you agree that GW is acting like a bully in going for a firm/individual who was unable to stand up to them whether they had a case or not.

I'm not going to make any assumption on the outcome of the case, but you seem to be agreeing with the rest of us that GW is not 'playing nice' so to speak. And that you also feel that their, GWs', actions are completly justified on both an ethical and moral level. On top of which, using your second quote as reference, you seem to be condoning the use of harrassment, browbeating tactics and deep pocket litigation against a defendant who couldn't afford to defend themselves regardless or not of the validity of the case.

Andrew

agnosto wrote:

Eldanar wrote:I understood what you meant, agnosto, and think your concerns are justified. Attorneys, in many cases deservedly so, are pilloried every day for being money-grubbing ambulance chasers. However, the general public sees very little of the amount of pro bono work that is done by private attorneys; or in my current case, how much behind-the-scenes work is done by public attorneys.

Most pro bono work is in the areas of criminal law, probate, inheritance, housing, etc. It is basically set up to help indigent parties. The novel thing about this case is there are two seperate high-street law firms that have stepped forward in what would otherwise appear to be a fairly silly commercial claim. Add to this that there are some novel theories of law at play.

Yeah, I have worked for and known many in the lawyerly profession over the years; they're a group of hard-working individuals by and large which is the reason I didn't go to law school myself, I actually wanted a home life.

You're right, it is odd how two, fairly high profile, legal offices have taken up the collective cause vs. GW. I believe it was stated earlier in the thread, and rightly so, that it is probably because they want to be in on a precedent setting case. If that is the motive, I doubt we'll see a settlement.

Hey... maybe they're gamers

lol, that's what I was thinking...little do we know that both of these firms are led by people who grew up playing 40k, and ultimately left the hobby because of the focus on Space Marines and other business practices that have lead up to this point.

Ho ho! You mean is it a grudge match.

Nice to imagine but how likely could it be?

I would like to see precedent set giving small firms the right to produce add on's.
Or even complete figures.

That would destroy the IP; not to mention making it completely undefendable. How do you prevent a company from making a shoddy add on or figure and thus damaging the image of said IP?

If its going to be like that, it has to be fair. Big companies should be able to do the exact same to any IP of the small companies.

but yea on topic i hope chapter house eats GW for breakfast I'd love to have cheaper minis and other companies to be able to sell compatable minis and acessorieswith 40k stuff it'd be good for the hobby. people will always buy the books from GW but with the prices where they and and the pending price hike it is getting rediculous what we have to pay for a few quarters worth of resin

The game would simply die then. GW can't stay as a company selling just books.

Mr Hyena wrote:

I would like to see precedent set giving small firms the right to produce add on's.
Or even complete figures.

That would destroy the IP; not to mention making it completely undefendable. How do you prevent a company from making a shoddy add on or figure and thus damaging the image of said IP?

History tells us otherwise.

If GW loses this case, the sky will definitely not fall.

Mr Hyena wrote:That would destroy the IP; not to mention making it completely undefendable. How do you prevent a company from making a shoddy add on or figure and thus damaging the image of said IP?

GW do a good enough job of that themselves.

Alpharius wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

I would like to see precedent set giving small firms the right to produce add on's.
Or even complete figures.

That would destroy the IP; not to mention making it completely undefendable. How do you prevent a company from making a shoddy add on or figure and thus damaging the image of said IP?

History tells us otherwise.

If GW loses this case, the sky will definitely not fall.

How?

The car parts one is different, as you can't make a full fake car and sell it off as an original. Selling a full Figure would be the same.

These speculations are off topic.

Please "Cease & Desist".

Mr Hyena wrote:

Alpharius wrote:
History tells us otherwise.

If GW loses this case, the sky will definitely not fall.

How?

The car parts one is different, as you can't make a full fake car and sell it off as an original. Selling a full Figure would be the same.

...Look up "kit cars"... they are 100% legal kits that include everything to fully build a car, or sometimes just a body kit, that look like high end or collectable vehicles. CH isn't trying to pass of anything they've made as GWs.

At the same time lets be honest sooooooo many vehicles on the road look so much a like.

Just a curiosity, in this thread:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/372290.page


Apparantly GW printed pictures of reader submited tyranid army that had a CH conversion kit. Will that have any effect on the case, good or bad?

G00fySmiley wrote:ahh dreams of a pre-reagan america where corperations didn't have the same rights as people, where congressmen wrote the laws instead of being handed them by lobbyist and told what to vote on based on who contributed to thier campaign... and when we had a working progressive tax code instead of a code with so many loopholes and breaks that if you can afford a good accountant you don't pay much if any and can see companies like GE get billions in tax refundsAFTER actually making huge profits /rant

Wow, I remember the Pre-Reagan Jimmney Cricket America with massive unemployment, going to gas line for 4+ hours with my parents (on top of that you could only get gas on odd/even days), military in disarray, massive crime in the cities (NYC was a cesspool and Newark NJ was still smoldering from the riots).

And GE is making massive profits off the Obama reign (they have people in the administration and are making a killing off the curly-que light bulbs that require hazmat for cleanup).

Back on topic: I hope CH eats GW fer breakfast. GW acts too much like a thugocracy- do what we tell you or you cant sell our product, withhold product, or bully small companies into closing that are selling product that may be used in GW games.

Kilkrazy wrote:The head barrister at the international company where I work always used to say you should never threaten to sue until you are completely prepared to follow up on your threat.

GW clearly weren't.

Bingo. This is the crux of the issue. Games Workshop filed this suit with impunity and therefore made ridiculous, far-reaching claims that it knew it wouldn't be able to support. The big question this raises is why? Why not file a more modest, tightly focused suit if your only goal was to put a company out of business because you thought that the expense of a lawsuit would put it under? Was Games Workshop attempting to make a statement or send a message? Was Games Workshop going way over the top to ensure that Chapterhouse Studios would crumble under the weight of the accusations?

I'm not prepared to believe that both Games Workshop and its representation at Foley and Lardner were negligently incompetent. If this suit is not the result of incompetence or sheer hubris, the potential motivations for it are concerning. The Defendants' counter claims and the discovery process will hopefully shed some light on this. Perhaps this is another reason Games Workshop will want to settle this thing out quickly. One wonders if there's some unflattering interoffice communications about third party bits companies, or even Chapterhouse Studios specifically.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Ho ho! You mean is it a grudge match.

Nice to imagine but how likely could it be?

I don't think it is very likely. The GW v CHS lawsuit creates some interesting legal questions and it is clearly a case of IP bullying. Given this, it probably didn't take much more than pitching the idea to the right person at the right time. Lawyers for Creative Arts in Chicago, and other similar organizations around the country, are good at doing this. Plus, as we have seen in this thread and others, more than a few wargamers are themselves lawyers and have their own connections in the legal community. I've worked with two of the three law firms involved in the case, for example. I don't know any of the attorneys on the case, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Nick knew somebody that knew somebody that had a friend who had worked with someone in the same office, et. etc. On some level, it's all about who you know.

Personally, I find this very heartening. I would love to know that the wargaming community was largely responsible for the defense of Chapterhouse Studios. I don't think it is simply a matter of luck that Chapterhouse Studios was able to get hooked up with Winston and Strawn. It wasn't like Ms. Golinveaux was trolling forums, read the complaint, and then called up Nick, or at least that scenario borders on absurd. If luck was involved, it was lucky that the case got exposure of blogs and forums, and it was lucky that someone got hooked up with Nick who was in a position to make a few calls. As Eldanar has pointed out, lawyers do pro-bono work. There are volunteer organizations dedicated to helping artists find representation. And most importantly, there is a community in place that spreads awareness of issues like this. Is it lucky that you find a good deal when searching through Ebay? Sure, but it isn't blind luck. There's a system in place to facilitate that result.

carmachu wrote:Just a curiosity, in this thread:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/372290.page
Apparantly GW printed pictures of reader submited tyranid army that had a CH conversion kit. Will that have any effect on the case, good or bad?

They didn't, the poster was mistaken. (I have the WD and the Chapterhouse conversion kit, so I should know )

weeble1000 wrote:Games Workshop filed this suit with impunity and therefore made ridiculous, far-reaching claims that it knew it wouldn't be able to support. The big question this raises is why?

One possibility is that a more modest claim would allow Chapterhouse to stop producing particular products. I mean, if you're actually infringing on a trademark, the best thing to do is just adhere to the cease and desist order. And if Chapterhouse could make all of this go away by dropping one small part of their miniatures line, then they would probably just do that- the way that Raging Heroes did recently.

Maybe GW didn't want to give them that option. GW has essentially made the claim that the existence of Chapterhouse Studio is infringing on their IP, and so the whole studio needs to be shut down. All of their products infringe- according to the GW lawyers.

Of course, that's a crazy hard claim to prove, but I can see why they might not take that into account if they're going after someone they think is too small to defend themselves in court.

GW: All of your IP are belong to us.

CH: What specifically?

Judge: Yeah, tell them, GW. You can't just claim for "everything".

Kilkrazy wrote:GW: All of your IP are belong to us.

CH: What specifically?

Judge: Yeah, tell them, GW. You can't just claim for "everything".

GW: *sigh* do you want the list alphabetically or chronologically?

Judge: ...Erm...... Sod it, both!

On Topic: DO we know whether this is actually what they did? or did GW specify certain IP infringements?

You have to read the whole thread because the story has developed over a number of months.

To precis it, GW claimed basically that everything CH did infringed all of GW's trademarks (they claim to have dozens) so the whole company should be shut down, all the moulds and equipment destroyed, and the staff sold into slavery.

CH got some high-powered IP lawyers who said, "CH can't defend themselves against a charge of 'everything and all of everything'. It isn't justice."

The judge agreed with that, and ordered GW to make specific claims.

GW started to go a bit well, er, um, er.

GW are supposed by now to have filed specific claims and the judge is examining them.

Kilkrazy wrote:You have to read the whole thread because the story has developed over a number of months.

I have read the whole thing, i did so a while ago and have posted here before.
You dont remember?
I also know all about the recent(ish) changes and fluctuations etc. but was just wondering if the original citation was 'everything' or more specific (even though i know they did make vague accusations, i couldn't remember if there was ant specificity in there at all).

To precis it, GW claimed basically that everything CH did infringed all of GW's trademarks (they claim to have dozens) so the whole company should be shut down, all the moulds and equipment destroyed, and the staff sold into slavery.

CH got some high-powered IP lawyers who said, "CH can't defend themselves against a charge of 'everything and all of everything'. It isn't justice."

The judge agreed with that, and ordered GW to make specific claims.

GW started to go a bit well, er, um, er.

GW are supposed by now to have filed specific claims and the judge is examining them.

That actually sums most of it up fairly well, and humourously too i might add.

Kilkrazy wrote:You have to read the whole thread because the story has developed over a number of months.

To precis it, GW claimed basically that everything CH did infringed all of GW's trademarks (they claim to have dozens) so the whole company should be shut down, all the moulds and equipment destroyed, and the staff sold into slavery.

CH got some high-powered IP lawyers who said, "CH can't defend themselves against a charge of 'everything and all of everything'. It isn't justice."

The judge agreed with that, and ordered GW to make specific claims.

GW started to go a bit well, er, um, er.

GW are supposed by now to have filed specific claims and the judge is examining them.

To be a little more precise:

GW claimed that all 106 of Chapterhouse's products infringed its unspecified copyrights, which the complaint essentially claimed was everything that Games Workshop had done in connection with Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000. Games Workshop also made claims of trademark infringement.

Chapterhouse filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of specificity, i.e. there's no way to respond to a complaint that lacks specific allegations and Games Workshop is required to make a succinct, specific claim under Rule 8 of civil procedure. Chapterhouse said that in alternative to dismissal, it would accept an amended complaint.

The judge terminated the motion and required Games Workshop to file an amended complaint.

Games Workshop refiled the same complaint with 4 additional paragraphs that were also largely unspecific.

Chapterhouse renewed its motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint wasn't any different, but that if the Judge wanted to limit Games Workshop to only those very few specific claims that were made, the Defense would be fine with that.

Judge Kennelly denied the motion and required Games Workshop to respond to early discovery from Chapterhouse Studios. This was a stern way to get Games Workshop to specify its claims. Instead of giving Games Workshop another opportunity to revise the complaint, the Judge forced Games Workshop to answer specific questions posed by Chapterhouse Studios. This not only put some measure of control in the hands of the Defendant, but it also forced the Plaintiff to honestly respond to the Defendant's interrogatories.

In the mean time, Chapterhouse Answered the first amended complaint.

Presumably, this process is ongoing at this time. A status conference is scheduled for next month, or is it this month already? I think it is on the 13th of June. The conference was delayed because Paulson got representation.

My guess is that Chapterhouse Studios and Paulson will again submit motions to dismiss. It is harder to make predictions now though because we don't know what interrogatories Chapterhouse sent to Games Workshop, nor do we know what Games Workshop's responses were.

To summarize:

GW- Everything you do is a copy of our stuff, so you need to go out of business. You also used our trademarks unfairly.
CHS- Umm...are you serious? I can't intelligently respond to that and you should know better about Rule 8.
Judge- I agree. Go and fix it please.
GW- Well, everything I said before, but there's an issue with those shoulder pads (roman numerals, arrows, things like that), that Tervigon deal is kinda like our Tyranids, and those vehicle kits totally copy our vehicles. I'd be more specific, but CHS is in a better position to know what it copied.
CHS- Are you serious? The Judge asked you to be specific. "Tyranids" isn't specific. What actual works are allegedly infringed? You're still way shy of Rule 8, and you should really know better. But, if you want to go to court with roman numerals, arrows, and APC doors, we'll happily defend against those completely unprotectable ideas.
Judge- Seriously? I don't know what to make of this. I can't toss the case because GW hasn't even given me enough information to make an intelligent decision. So, instead of doing on your own, GW, I'm going to let CHS ask you any question it wants about your claims and you will have to answer them. Maybe then I'll know wtf is going on here.
CHS- To the best of our current knowledge, we deny the claims as they exist in the first amended complaint. We also think GW knew its claims were bogus when it made them, so we want the Court to punish GW.

Wow weeble, thanks!
That makes it all much clearer.
Did GW really try and 'specify' IP violation with Roman numerals??!! That seems.... well really dumb tbh.

weeble1000 wrote:Judge- Seriously? I don't know what to make of this. I can't toss the case because GW hasn't even given me enough information to make an intelligent decision. So, instead of doing on your own, GW, I'm going to let CHS ask you any question it wants about your claims and you will have to answer them. Maybe then I'll know wtf is going on here.

classic quote, which if this turns out the way it seems like it will to me (ie. CHS handing GW their on a platter), then i want this to immortalised somewhere, possibly GW HQ so they never forget actions have consequences!

Revenent Reiko wrote:
classic quote, which if this turns out the way it seems like it will to me (ie. CHS handing GW their on a platter), then i want this to immortalised somewhere, possibly GW HQ so they never forget actions have consequences!

And GW will punish the hobby by officially removing rules for any model they don't make an explicit model for. Deny the 3rd party company a reason for the model to exist, the market dries up and the model doesn't sell. If there are no rules for tervigon, makes it hard to convince people to buy one.

This is what GW did with Blood Bowl and they will do the same here.

Seriously, if GW would get off it's lazy ass and make the models for the codex it unleashes at a timely fashion, then this would not happen with third party companies making stuff to help the gamers out by having other stuff made to cover the shortfalls. Either that, or license out production with someone checking QC....Oh wait, they seem to have already dropped the ball on that QC issue with "Fine"-cast already!

Spacemanvic wrote:

G00fySmiley wrote:ahh dreams of a pre-reagan america where corperations didn't have the same rights as people, where congressmen wrote the laws instead of being handed them by lobbyist and told what to vote on based on who contributed to thier campaign... and when we had a working progressive tax code instead of a code with so many loopholes and breaks that if you can afford a good accountant you don't pay much if any and can see companies like GE get billions in tax refundsAFTER actually making huge profits /rant

Wow, I remember the Pre-Reagan Jimmney Cricket America with massive unemployment, going to gas line for 4+ hours with my parents (on top of that you could only get gas on odd/even days), military in disarray, massive crime in the cities (NYC was a cesspool and Newark NJ was still smoldering from the riots).

And GE is making massive profits off the Obama reign (they have people in the administration and are making a killing off the curly-que light bulbs that require hazmat for cleanup).

Back on topic: I hope CH eats GW fer breakfast. GW acts too much like a thugocracy- do what we tell you or you cant sell our product, withhold product, or bully small companies into closing that are selling product that may be used in GW games.

I'm not saying everything was peachy before that point, nor am i sayign that either party isn't corrupt as hell. which i think we can both reasonably agree on, and i wasn't around in the 70's heck my parents were not even old enough to vote yet at that point i just don't think the idea of trickle down is workign and the gaop between richest and middle class in the country has been getting wider since then which i think is not a good thing and currently politics in the us is pretty much an oligarchy where coporations have control of the major 2 parties instead of gov by the people. but i will say i don't believe the hype about how toxic some people claim mini florescent light bulbs are, nto that i use them much, i use led bulbs, they are more efficient and most importantly due to living in a very warm state (FL) and having an older house i couldn't get it below 80 with the ac running as hard as it could when it was over 100 outside. switched to florescents and ented the compressor on the refrigorator outside and BAM 78 like i wanted but the a/c never turned off, now that i use led it does turn off sometimes .

on topic though i agree i hope CH can win and with thier new representation i believe they can.

On the respocne earlier another person stating GW can't survive on making books and codexes... why not... dnd did great with that for quite some time. how about the many MANY rpg's that require even less codex/ handbooks costing even less than GW and yet they seem to be doing well enough. I am not saying i don't want GW to keep making minis just that it'd be nice not only for price purposes to have different minis, but for variety on a tabletop. my orks could have different looks than another person's orks, or space marines from one vendor would look similar to gw space marines but there would be actual modeling differences instead of just paint differences. I honestly think it'd be good for the hobby and the prices going down on minis I am positive WOULD bring in more players and thus help GW sell more books and if they droppped prices more models.

I'm not as good with legal issues so feel free to tell me I'm dumb on that ... or on anythign for that matter i'll never take anythign personal. but i do see every saturday i play i explain the game to alot of teenagers and sometimes let them play with my minis to try out the game and if the buyin was cheaper ALOT more people would be playing there. most parents come talk to me and the wife and thier kids want to play but the parents see the cost of the models and just say it isn't going to be possible due to the buy in cost which is understandable I'm sure when i have kids money will be even more tight than now. I'd say the psychological money point to most families if 20 bucks... if a box of infantry models be they boyz space marines or other were 20 bucks I am sure we'd see alot more players and if CH wins this and can show legal precidence that other companies can make thier own models i think we'd see competition force prices to that point... just my thought on the matter

G00fySmiley wrote:
On the responce earlier another person stating GW can't survive on making books and codexes... why not... dnd did great with that for quite some time. how about the many MANY rpg's that require even less codex/ handbooks costing even less than gGW and yet they seem to be doing well enough. I am nto saying i don't want GGW to keep making minis just that it'd be nice not only for price purposes to have different minis, btu for variety on a tabletop. my orks could have different looks than another person's orks, or space marines from one vendor woudl look similar to gw space marines btu there would be actual modeling differences instead of just paint differences. I honestly think it'd be good for the hobby and the prices going down on minis I am positive WOULD bring in more players and thus help GW sell more books and if they droppped prices more models.

I'm not as good with legal issues so feel free to tell me I'm dumb on that ... or on anythign for that matter i'll never take anythign personal. but i do see every saturday i play i explain the game to alot of teenagers and sometimes let them play with my minis to try out the game and if the buyin was cheaper ALOT more people would be playing there. most parents come talk to me and the wife and thier kids want to play but the parents see the cost of the models and just say it isn't going to be possible due to the buy in cost which is understandable I'm sure when i have kids money will be even more tight than now. I'd say the psychological money point to most families if 20 bucks... if a box of infantry models be they boyz space marines or other were 20 bucks I am sure we'd see alot more players and if CH wins this and can show legal precidence that other companies can make thier own models i think we'd see competition force prices to that point... just my thought on the matter

My thoughts exactly. GO GO CH

Competition force prices down and quality up

Something tells me that there is some news to give out. Something about there being many releases forthcoming from CH...

Spacemanvic wrote:Something tells me that there is some news to give out. Something about there being many releases forthcoming from CH...

And why is that? Dont be cryptic.

carmachu wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Something tells me that there is some news to give out. Something about there being many releases forthcoming from CH...

And why is that? Dont be cryptic.

I think he means with the release of two new kits that convert GW vehicles, are shown with the parts attached to the vehicles as well as using GW's trademarks to advertise the kits that he thinks 'something' has happened that has has cleared CH to release these kits without fear of impacting the case or hurting them.

carmachu wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:Something tells me that there is some news to give out. Something about there being many releases forthcoming from CH...

And why is that? Dont be cryptic.

+1. I hope one of our legal eagles can chime in with some info.

Here's the link to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). Anyone can access the court documents for this case, although it's only free up to $10/quarter. So if you're trying to stay on the free side, watch your usage .

Chapterhouse is in an odd position at the moment. I suspect that the company wants to keep business as usual as much as possible, but at the same time it would not be prudent to do anything that would given more ammunition to the Plaintiff. Chapterhouse Studios has excellent representation from Winston and Strawn, so I think it's safe to assume that if Nick is listening to the advice of his counsel (which is a really, really good idea, especially since it is pro-bono), what Chapterhouse is doing in terms of releasing new products is pretty well okay with respect to the effect it could have on the ongoing litigation with Games Workshop.

There's nothing new going on in the case that I'm aware of. There's a status conference in a wee or so.

Biccat - thanks for posting a link to PACER. I wasn't aware that you could get $10 of free access, although as many docs as I download, 10 dollars wouldn't go very far.

Also you guys posses the vital skills necessary to translate those documents into understandable language.

Don't think it isn't appreciated. :thumbs

Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

weeble1000 wrote:Biccat - thanks for posting a link to PACER. I wasn't aware that you could get $10 of free access, although as many docs as I download, 10 dollars wouldn't go very far.

Neither did I, actually. It used to just be a fee for everything.

I might have to set up a personal account for the occasional peek at what's going on in this case.

biccat wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:Biccat - thanks for posting a link to PACER. I wasn't aware that you could get $10 of free access, although as many docs as I download, 10 dollars wouldn't go very far.

Neither did I, actually. It used to just be a fee for everything.

I might have to set up a personal account for the occasional peek at what's going on in this case.

I made an account but apparently they send you log-in information via the post office.

weeble1000 wrote:Chapterhouse Studios has excellent representation from Winston and Strawn, so I think it's safe to assume that if Nick is listening to the advice of his counsel (which is a really, really good idea, especially since it is pro-bono), what Chapterhouse is doing in terms of releasing new products is pretty well okay with respect to the effect it could have on the ongoing litigation with Games Workshop.

Question from someone who definitely isn't a legal eagle, weeble - wasn't there a whole "period of discovery" thing earlier in the case? My understanding at the time was that only items identified as an issue at that time would affect the case - did I miss something?

I agree that they should be taking the free advice at this point as to anything they release, but I didn't think new releases could damage the case.

Interesting point, Kroothawk - do they have a disclaimer on appropriate pages saying that Mr Moorcock has given them permission to use the Chaos star?

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Before going off-topic though:
I can call up Michael Moore and ask for the rights to publish my own dvd of "Night of the Living Dead". If he says yes, does that make it legal for me to publish my own dvd of "Night of the Living Dead"?

(And yes: I'm aware that "Night of the Living Dead" was never copywritten correctly and is considered 'public domain' because of that. Was using whatever movie is currently on to make the point.)

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Also, "fun fact' (and variations thereof) is right up there with 'pro-tip' for phrases almost guaranteed to come across in a negative sense and as such, really not something to use in polite discussion

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Notice: I didn't say that Moorcock didn't 'inspire'(and all the negative connotations inherent within those quotations are intended) the Chaos Star used by GW. Moorcock's Chaos Star was described as being wavey lines for each branch of the arm of the star. GW's are, for the most part, straight. Previous iterations of the 8 pointed star were usually within a circle, and referenced being 'chaos contained'.

I'm not saying Moorcock didn't get ripped off, mind you. I'm saying that while he may have been, he also didn't create the concept entirely on his own. That symbol wasn't unheard of before Elric.

Also, "fun fact' (and variations thereof) is right up there with 'pro-tip' for phrases almost guaranteed to come across in a negative sense and as such, really not something to use in polite discussion

Duly noted?

I thought GW took the Moorcock star and put their ring on it.

From what I have found, Crowley never called it anything and just meant it as an example for "...energy scattering at high velocities...". So Crowley didn't create the named "Chaos Star", just an illustration on a card.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_of_Chaos

But beside this, the point of the fact that things are looking good for CH. Even if they manage to thin out the case against them to something far lesser then what GW was aiming for, CH proved a point.

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Of course this goes to the heart of the problem.

An eight pointed star is an eight pointed star. The key issue is the association of the eight pointed star with the concept of the Chaos powers, which Moorcock certainly did invent, and which GW now lay claim to.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Of course this goes to the heart of the problem.

An eight pointed star is an eight pointed star. The key issue is the association of the eight pointed star with the concept of the Chaos powers, which Moorcock certainly did invent, and which GW now lay claim to.

Exactly!

Perhaps reasoning like this helps CH in their endeavors against GW's lawsuit... I don't know.

I wish this whole situation could just be put to bed at this point, something, or someone has to give here.

Well, the judge has to force the GW management to accept that GW didn't invent the whole world. Not an easy task as the GW management lived in its tiny bubble for years, able to grow its omnipotency dreams without exposure to the real world. Now their demands are too unfair and greedy even for lawyers, that's why law firms stood in line to defend Chapterhouse pro bono.

Kroothawk wrote:Well, the judge has to force the GW management to accept that GW didn't invent the whole world. Not an easy task as the GW management lived in its tiny bubble for years, able to grow its omnipotency dreams without exposure to the real world. Now their demands are too unfair and greedy even for lawyers, that's why law firms stood in line to defend Chapterhouse pro bono.

lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.
To say that "their demands are too unfair and greedy even for lawyers" is conjecture, at best, and wishful thinking at worst. It's quite likely that the firm involved has other cases on their plate that might be applicable with something similar to their argument here, or they're interested in being able to set precedent.

Kanluwen wrote:lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.

Well, there were more than one, Kan, given that Paulson Games managed to get a second law firm of roughly the same size to defend them.

I also recall (though I'm not going quote-hunting) that one of the law-types on this thread mentioned that multiple firms wanted to be involved in this. It's anecdotal evidence, but more evidence than there has been for your view.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.

Well, there were more than one, Kan, given that Paulson Games managed to get a second law firm of roughly the same size to defend them.

I also recall (though I'm not going quote-hunting) that one of the law-types on this thread mentioned that multiple firms wanted to be involved in this. It's anecdotal evidence, but more evidence than there has been for your view.

Lol. Not in Kan's opinion. Have you seen how emotionally vested his is in the fluff threads?

I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

I expect the GTs will loose much in player turn out.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.
I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.
Bad news.

Always difficult to predict how restrictive regimes in decline like GW react on pressure. Current decisions seem to indicate that the management snapped and now openly fights reality to the death. But GW left Chapterhouse no choice but to end GW's omnipotency dreams.

Are we predicting cyanide and bullets in the GW Bunker?
If so can we draw lots to administer the "last rites" please?
I do hope my name is drawn.

I believe there are three law firms involved; GW's, Chapter House's and Paulson's. The latter two are working Pro Bono Publico.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

No. That would put a stake right in the heart of tournament Warhams. That's a great thing. Thaat's what we need to get the game back to "fun" and no :life validation."

Alpharius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: On their website, Chapterhouse copied the complete GW legal disclaimer, including GW claiming the copyright on the Chaos star, even when Chapterhousse contacted Michael Moorcock (the "inventor" of the Chaos symbol) and got his permission to use it.

Even more fun fact: the 'Chaos star' as designed by Michael Moorcock is not the same as the Chaos star used by GW.

Even MORE fun fact?
The 'Chaos Star' that Moorcock claims to be the 'inventor' of was pretty much the exact same as a symbol from Alistair Crowley's tarot.

Where are you getting this from?

From all of the descriptions I've read from Moorcock, and when you look at all the variations used by GW...

I think it is REALLY hard to say that GW got to their version of the 8 pointed star of Chaos without being HEAVILY influenced by Moorcock's version.

Also, "fun fact' (and variations thereof) is right up there with 'pro-tip' for phrases almost guaranteed to come across in a negative sense and as such, really not something to use in polite discussion

More to the point at least one White Dwarf article written by senior designers at GW openly admits this to be the case. It was one of the anniversary issues, looking back at GW's history, Issue 300 perhaps.

I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think it will depend on the ruling and where the company is based. I do think that if CHS wins, there will be many counter-suits depending on the IP laws in various countries.

If CHS wins, I know for a fact, two different people that are really good sculptors that will be launching their own 3-party bits/sculpt shops here in the US.

AndrewC wrote:I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think if they win you'll see more 3rd party models and advertising as what they are supposed to be. instead of "human space gladiator team" you'll actually see it advertised as space marines tac squad. same for "orc warrior" to ork boyz

Xelkireth wrote:I think it will depend on the ruling and where the company is based. I do think that if CHS wins, there will be many counter-suits depending on the IP laws in various countries.

If CHS wins, I know for a fact, two different people that are really good sculptors that will be launching their own 3-party bits/sculpt shops here in the US.

i welcome more models and in the US once there is precidence it'll be hard for things to change in the US meaning they will likely have to lower prices to coompete here with other modelrs and I can see it also bringing in mroe high end models with much mroe detail. I think it'd be good for the hobby and make it more popular if prices were more reasonable ( i could have never spent this much money on the hobby as a teen which is why i wrote it of fin highschool, had it been better priced who knows how much i'd have spent by now on gw products and how many armies I'd have.

Dysartes wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:lol?

One law firm "stood in line" to defend Chapterhouse pro bono. More likely than not, it's because they're a firm that specializes in IP law.

Well, there were more than one, Kan, given that Paulson Games managed to get a second law firm of roughly the same size to defend them.

I also recall (though I'm not going quote-hunting) that one of the law-types on this thread mentioned that multiple firms wanted to be involved in this. It's anecdotal evidence, but more evidence than there has been for your view.

*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

Kanluwen wrote:*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

You're underestimating what a boon it is for a lawfirm to be involved in a case that sets a legal precedent. Not to mention the $ a counter-suit will bring when involving a largish corporation.

agnosto wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:*shrug* If you say so. I'm having a hard time believing that there were a bunch of firms waiting for Chapterhouse/Paulson to pick them.

You're underestimating what a boon it is for a lawfirm to be involved in a case that sets a legal precedent. Not to mention the $ a counter-suit will bring when involving a largish corporation.

True enough.

People do not need to jump the gun...a federal district court decision, even well written and with good analysis does not set a binding precedent on other cases that may be potentially brought. GW could lose this case and turn around the next day and bring a similar suit against another manufacturer.

All a district court case does is set up a rebuttable presumption over a specific application of the law to a specific set of facts. It is precedential, but it is not a binding precedent, meaning other co-equal courts can ignore it or distinguish it somehow. District courts, time and time again, simply ignore even appellate and supreme court precedents, much less other district court decisions, merely by claiming that there is a slight difference in the fact situation to a new case, and arguing the law should be applied differently.

If GW loses, probably all it will do is make them a little more circumspect about how they use their muscle in future legal matters; and it will probably make their legal team start looking for a better fact situation in front of a different district court judge where they then might get a more favorable result. This is even assuming that all of the future 3d party start ups can make it through the intitial expenses of legal proceedings. Not everyone is going to be able to get pro bono representation.

Eldanar, wells said.

If nothing else, GW representation will probably be more careful in preparing their legal actions and the wording of the complaints. I would think so anyway.

Cottonjaw wrote:I'm not excited about the potential backlash of all this.

I can imagine a "GW product only" policy for GT's. Imagine chipping all those fancy shoulders or the after-market las/plas turrets off your razorbacks.

Bad news.

GW doesn't really run any GT's in the USA anymore. I really doubt that GW could force any of the independents like Adepticon to enforce a GW product only rule.

G00fySmiley wrote:

AndrewC wrote:I do have one question that I would like to ask, but it is a bit OT, obviously other manufacturers are watching this case, and hopefully this thread as well, do you think that they will change their product names if CHS wins?

Cheers

Andrew

I think if they win you'll see more 3rd party models and advertising as what they are supposed to be. instead of "human space gladiator team" you'll actually see it advertised as space marines tac squad. same for "orc warrior" to ork boyz

I think that is only partially the case. I don't believe that Chapterhouse is going to be able to set a precedent for replacement sculpts- those will still need to be named in some generic kind of way.

However, what you won't see anymore is "Shoulderpads for Sci-fi Vikings" but rather you'll see "Shoulderpads for Space Wolves."