General Hobbs wrote:



Is the continuing case the reason Chapterhouse hasn't made anything new in ages????

Chapterhouse has come out with plenty of new stuff. The company has a thread in News and Rumors. They recently released some torsos for Terminator-sized models and a few other things. Chapterhouse has also done a Kickstarter for some alien fortifications.

weeble1000 wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:



Is the continuing case the reason Chapterhouse hasn't made anything new in ages????

Chapterhouse has come out with plenty of new stuff. The company has a thread in News and Rumors. They recently released some torsos for Terminator-sized models and a few other things. Chapterhouse has also done a Kickstarter for some alien fortifications.

The terminator bits are pretty danged spiffy, in my opinion -



The thread has been pushed down a few pages, but here is a LINK.

The Auld Grump

Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs - I guess I can see why GW would be upset. I don't understand why GW doesn't get into the "bit game" again and solve the problem that way.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs - I guess I can see why GW would be upset. I don't understand why GW doesn't get into the "bit game" again and solve the problem that way.

I think the case has shown that "rip-off" isn't quite the right term. "Compatible with" and a side order of "inspired by" maybe.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs

Uh, they're like 85% still GWS terminators? It's just a front torso and a head swap.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs - I guess I can see why GW would be upset. I don't understand why GW doesn't get into the "bit game" again and solve the problem that way.

How are they rip offs
They are parts compatible with GW terminators, not complete models. They are just new fronts

bah ninja'ed

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs - I guess I can see why GW would be upset. I don't understand why GW doesn't get into the "bit game" again and solve the problem that way.

1. Only the chest and head is produced by Chapterhouse. The rest of the model looks so much like a GW Terminator because IT IS a GW Terminator.

2. Those particular products are not part of the lawsuit as they were made after the lawsuit started.

3. GW does not own every variation of a chest-plate....even if it do fit with official GW Terminator models.

4. Those chest-plates doesn't look like anything GW has previously produced.



Double ninja'ed

Forgive the idiocy, it's 7am here and I've worked all night. What are they charging for these "inspired by" parts?

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Forgive the idiocy, it's 7am here and I've worked all night. What are they charging for these "inspired by" parts?

I'm not sure if they have been released. You should post that question in this thread.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to point this out, but GW is most likely scamming him. I dunno if anyone else has noticed this, but GW has a little clause that states that they are the sole owner of all materials submitted to them and that you surrender all IP rights to them by submitting them. Effectively, he's giving them four or five free sculpts per month without them having to pay him..

It's not a scam, it's just the way GW 'interviews' sculpting talent, and has done since at least the '90s. They want to see that the sculptor can sculpt to spec, and in GW's style.

Those test sculpts generally don't go anywhere, other than the occasional one being shown off at Games Day in an in-house sculptor's showcase.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
That nonsense has been going around since their painting contest. They had a legal statement that submitting will grand them a non-exclusive license to use your image for promotional purposes..

Longer than that. GW's forums had a clause in their rules stating that anything posted on the forums because their property as well.

I can't see how it stands up legally. There's nothing to prove what I post is original. If I post someone else's pictures to a GW site, they don't become GW property, they weren't mine to give.

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to point this out, but GW is most likely scamming him. I dunno if anyone else has noticed this, but GW has a little clause that states that they are the sole owner of all materials submitted to them and that you surrender all IP rights to them by submitting them. Effectively, he's giving them four or five free sculpts per month without them having to pay him..

It's not a scam, it's just the way GW 'interviews' sculpting talent, and has done since at least the '90s. They want to see that the sculptor can sculpt to spec, and in GW's style.

Those test sculpts generally don't go anywhere, other than the occasional one being shown off at Games Day in an in-house sculptor's showcase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
That nonsense has been going around since their painting contest. They had a legal statement that submitting will grand them a non-exclusive license to use your image for promotional purposes..

Longer than that. GW's forums had a clause in their rules stating that anything posted on the forums because their property as well.

I was going to challenge that first assertion, for last time I looked, they only claimed a non exclusive licence. but I would have been wrong. Their submissions policy is a rip-off:

From their site:

Who owns the ideas that I submit to you?

For legal reasons we will only accept your submission if you agree to assign all intellectual property rights in it to us. This means that by making a submission you automatically give Games Workshop ownership and exclusive rights to use your submission for any purpose. It is important that you are comfortable with this before making a submission to us. Please do not make a submission if you do not agree to this.

I remember Chris Fitzpatrick being annoyed with that policy - he had liked some of those models that he had submitted.

 Ouze wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:
Those terminators actually do look like blatant ripoffs

Uh, they're like 85% still GWS terminators? It's just a front torso and a head swap.

To be fair, he may have missed that part.

The Auld Grump

 insaniak wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hate to point this out, but GW is most likely scamming him. I dunno if anyone else has noticed this, but GW has a little clause that states that they are the sole owner of all materials submitted to them and that you surrender all IP rights to them by submitting them. Effectively, he's giving them four or five free sculpts per month without them having to pay him..

It's not a scam, it's just the way GW 'interviews' sculpting talent, and has done since at least the '90s. They want to see that the sculptor can sculpt to spec, and in GW's style.

Those test sculpts generally don't go anywhere, other than the occasional one being shown off at Games Day in an in-house sculptor's showcase.

I don't think GW is scamming him, it's that he doesn't have any "GW themed" sculpts in his portfolio other than some Dreadnought Weapons and BFG models he did for SG/FW. He wwas too busy sculpting for other companies so he could make a living.

The point I was trying to make is that GW has this policy that they think will get them only the "best of the best" when in reality it discourages a lot of sculptors from even applying, at least it has discouraged several sculptors I know from applying.

Many freelance sculptors do that for a living, they have to sculpt to make money. Several sculptors I know would love to work for GW, and they have the talent, but not the time to sculpt models just for an application.

A lot of companies get to the point where their own policies start to hurt them, especially when combined with staff that won't (or are unwilling to) question the sense of those policies.

Yes GW does have specific things they like for their models, but that can be learned. They should be able to look at a sculptors portfolio and make a judgment on their skills based on existing sculpts.

But this does go along with GW stance that they are somehow "special" and not part for the wargames community. Their models are so different they require "special talent" to sculpt. IMHO, other than character models, GW models really aren't all that complex. Especially rank and file models.

I think it has more to do with a misunderstanding between the studio and whomever in HR wrote that hiring policy.

To be fair - GW does have a 'house style' for each army, though that style seems to change every few editions.

I am curious as to whether GW will try to sue again over the new models, such as those nicely retro terminators - it didn't work the first time, so let's do it again!

Sort of like how well the thermonuclear war is going for Apple....

The Auld Grump, big companies can be just as stupid as little companies, but they have more money to spend while being stupid....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
To be fair - GW does have a 'house style' for each army, though that style seems to change every few editions.

I am curious as to whether GW will try to sue again over the new models, such as those nicely retro terminators - it didn't work the first time, so let's do it again!

Sort of like how well the thermonuclear war is going for Apple....

The Auld Grump, big companies can be just as stupid as little companies, but they have more money to spend while being stupid....

I remember a White Dwarf feature many moons ago where a sculptor's audition pieces were pictured so its nothing new. I always thought it might be because a sculptor may be fantastic when producing items that give their artistic talent full reign but may not be as good when trying to emulate a particular set style.

As for future legal action, if GW win some claims after appeal then is the door open for them to try again on new items? Previously others have used the term 'vexatious litigation'. Is that where you continually use legal actions that you have no chance of winning to effectively harass someone in some kind of war of attrition?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
To be fair - GW does have a 'house style' for each army, though that style seems to change every few editions.

I am curious as to whether GW will try to sue again over the new models, such as those nicely retro terminators - it didn't work the first time, so let's do it again!

Sort of like how well the thermonuclear war is going for Apple....

The Auld Grump, big companies can be just as stupid as little companies, but they have more money to spend while being stupid....

Well Grump, the Apple lawsuits are going really well for Apple. In the grand scheme of things...but the lawsuits are going well. And there is another trial coming up on patents that impact Samsung phones currently on the market. So it's heating up.

I don't think Apple was sad to get 1 billion dollars out of Samsung for the first several patents, and losing nothing to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alphaecho wrote:


As for future legal action, if GW win some claims after appeal then is the door open for them to try again on new items? Previously others have used the term 'vexatious litigation'. Is that where you continually use legal actions that you have no chance of winning to effectively harass someone in some kind of war of attrition?

There's nothing inherently wrong with GW suing over new products. New products are new, and any artist has the right to protect its works. It would just be really stupid. Chapterhouse's costs of defense would be down dramatically, it would give CHS another crack at GW discovery, which is bound to turn up more dirt or lead to further sanctions for GW, and GW would be headed into an unfriendly court that was glad to see the back of it.

I wouldn't beat your head around GW's chances on appeal. It isn't worth the time. But if CHS wins on appeal it could become next to impossible for GW to sue CHS again, practically speaking. Not only could CHS walk into a court where the judge knows the appellate court disagreed with the judge and is staring over his shoulder, but GW would, as you suggest, have a much greater risk of a vexatious litigation tort, which requires that you know a lawsuit does not have merit when you file it. There would be a risk for GW that one of its claims would be too similar to something the court of appeals tossed out.

Further, if CHS prevails in appeal, say on the basis that GW never proved ownership of a mark after three years of litigation and a trial...THERE's a besutifully packaged malicious litigation claim. An indigent defendant sued on Christmas by an international corporation that dragged pro bono counsel through millions and millions of dollars of years long litigation only to fail to bring sufficient evidence to prevail on a THRESHOLD issue...

GW could wind up being on the hook for MILLIONS of dollars. I'm not saying how likely any of this is compared to other potential outcomes, but it IS on the list of potential outcomes.

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
To be fair - GW does have a 'house style' for each army, though that style seems to change every few editions.

I am curious as to whether GW will try to sue again over the new models, such as those nicely retro terminators - it didn't work the first time, so let's do it again!

Sort of like how well the thermonuclear war is going for Apple....

The Auld Grump, big companies can be just as stupid as little companies, but they have more money to spend while being stupid....

Well Grump, the Apple lawsuits are going really well for Apple. In the grand scheme of things...but the lawsuits are going well. And there is another trial coming up on patents that impact Samsung phones currently on the market. So it's heating up.

I don't think Apple was sad to get 1 billion dollars out of Samsung for the first several patents, and losing nothing to get it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

alphaecho wrote:


As for future legal action, if GW win some claims after appeal then is the door open for them to try again on new items? Previously others have used the term 'vexatious litigation'. Is that where you continually use legal actions that you have no chance of winning to effectively harass someone in some kind of war of attrition?

There's nothing inherently wrong with GW suing over new products. New products are new, and any artist has the right to protect its works. It would just be really stupid. Chapterhouse's costs of defense would be down dramatically, it would give CHS another crack at GW discovery, which is bound to turn up more dirt or lead to further sanctions for GW, and GW would be headed into an unfriendly court that was glad to see the back of it.

I wouldn't beat your head around GW's chances on appeal. It isn't worth the time. But if CHS wins on appeal it could become next to impossible for GW to sue CHS again, practically speaking. Not only could CHS walk into a court where the judge knows the appellate court disagreed with the judge and is staring over his shoulder, but GW would, as you suggest, have a much greater risk of a vexatious litigation tort, which requires that you know a lawsuit does not have merit when you file it. There would be a risk for GW that one of its claims would be too similar to something the court of appeals tossed out.

Further, if CHS prevails in appeal, say on the basis that GW never proved ownership of a mark after three years of litigation and a trial...THERE's a besutifully packaged malicious litigation claim. An indigent defendant sued on Christmas by an international corporation that dragged pro bono counsel through millions and millions of dollars of years long litigation only to fail to bring sufficient evidence to prevail on a THRESHOLD issue...

GW could wind up being on the hook for MILLIONS of dollars. I'm not saying how likely any of this is compared to other potential outcomes, but it IS on the list of potential outcomes.

A bit of a correction there Weeble 1000 -

The 'Thermonuclear War' was not Apple against Samsung - it was a quote taken from Jobs in his autobiography, and that he was going to destroy Google (not Samsung - which was a lot closer to a proper IP case), and that he would be willing to spend every dime that Apple controls in order to destroy Google.

Steve Jobs wrote:Our lawsuit is saying, ‘Google, you ***ing ripped off the iPhone, wholesale ripped us off,’” the infamous quote reads. “Grand theft. … I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this'

It is a strange thing when a company tries to block a published statement from its CEO from being used in trial. (And it didn't work - the judge ruled that a published and public statement is, well, published and public.)

About a year ago at a press conference Larry of Google was asked about it by Wired Magazine and his comment was 'Hows that working?'

As in the GW situation there is a great deal of irony - the iPhones OS is based on the interface used on Mac - which was taken by both Jobs and Gates from the work going on a Palo Alto Research Center at the time.

Jobs was up in arms about Google stealing an idea that he and Bill gates had stolen....

Much like GW being up in arms about folks using the term Space Marine, or the eight pointed star of Chaos....

And Job's expressed willingness to bankrupt his company in trying to destroy the competition bears a similarity to the amount of money that GW spent on the CHS lawsuit.

Apple still has the biggest piece of the smart phone market with the various iPhones- but the Android market in its total is much larger than the iPhone.

Though I think that at least the iPhone is keeping up with industry growth.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
A bit of a correction there Weeble 1000 -

The 'Thermonuclear War' was not Apple against Samsung - it was a quote taken from Jobs in his autobiography, and that he was going to destroy Google (not Samsung - which was a lot closer to a proper IP case), and that he would be willing to spend every dime that Apple controls in order to destroy Google.

The Auld Grump

I'm well aware of what you were referring to. But Apple's case against Samsung is also a case against Google. Ka-BLAM! Samsung is using the Android OS developed by Google, and Google is a party to the current trial given that some of the latest batch of patents have been asserted against the Android OS. Same lawsuit though, Judge Koh simply chopped up the many patents into separate, more manageable, trials.

And although that statement came in, a jury still awarded Apple over a billion dollars and Samsung nothing, and then another jury sided with Apple when Judge Koh screwed with the damages. So thus far in the US the score is Apple 2, Samsung 0 when it comes to trials. We'll have to see what happens when Google is in the mix.

Well, Google acquired the cellular element of Motorola about 2 years back.

Motorola, having then fallen on hard times, were real trailblazers back in the day, and hold/held patents for a number of critical cellphone elements dating back (I believe) to the 1950s.

Speculation in the industry at the time was that Google had done this purely for the patents, with a view to smacking Apple with a counter claim at some point to be determined in the future.

I've since left the industry, so not been following the situation as closely, but I don't believe this has happened yet.

Could be interesting when it does...

 azreal13 wrote:
Well, Google acquired the cellular element of Motorola about 2 years back.

Motorola, having then fallen on hard times, were real trailblazers back in the day, and hold/held patents for a number of critical cellphone elements dating back (I believe) to the 1950s.

Speculation in the industry at the time was that Google had done this purely for the patents, with a view to smacking Apple with a counter claim at some point to be determined in the future.

I've since left the industry, so not been following the situation as closely, but I don't believe this has happened yet.

Could be interesting when it does...

This is straying way off topic, but the Great Cell Phone Wars are entering into a new phase. The MENS club is starting to disintegrate, and young upstarts like LG, Apple, and Google are acquiring old MENS club patent portfolios, first to wield against the oppressive market-controlling machinations of the old boys, but now are entering into their own phase of competitive infighting over market share. The King is dead, long live the King, and all that.

Still, it is fabulous for business.

However - the suits against Samsung were handled in a manner bearing upon the physical aspects of the product - not the much more nebulous field of software design.

If I remember properly the portions dealing with the Android OS were stripped from the case by the Apple attorneys, well before it went to court, in order to focus on the much more provable physical aspects. (Win the parts that you are confident of winning before focusing on the less provable.)

One thing about some of the more vaporous aspects of IP law is that it seems that the patent is being granted on the questions, not the answers - so that if two people come up with widely, or even wholly, different answers to the same question then the one that patents first gets to prevent the other method from being used. (And this is a big portion of what keeps the patent trolls in business.)

Which is very much against the original purpose of the patent system.

For example,Apple is doing much better against Samsung than they did against Microsoft in regards to the 'look and feel' of the product. (One thing that I will never, ever forgive Jobs for is popularizing that horrible bastard English term 'tangiblize'. )

The nature of IP is changing faster than the legal means to deal with it.

The Auld Grump

So....how long til we get any movement on this case (not the Apple one)?

Depends how long this latest mandatory settlement conference takes, agnosto - weeble, do you happen to know if there is a period it must go on for before the appeals can get under way?

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
However - the suits against Samsung were handled in a manner bearing upon the physical aspects of the product - not the much more nebulous field of software design.

If I remember properly the portions dealing with the Android OS were stripped from the case by the Apple attorneys, well before it went to court, in order to focus on the much more provable physical aspects. (Win the parts that you are confident of winning before focusing on the less provable.)

One thing about some of the more vaporous aspects of IP law is that it seems that the patent is being granted on the questions, not the answers - so that if two people come up with widely, or even wholly, different answers to the same question then the one that patents first gets to prevent the other method from being used. (And this is a big portion of what keeps the patent trolls in business.)

Which is very much against the original purpose of the patent system.

For example,Apple is doing much better against Samsung than they did against Microsoft in regards to the 'look and feel' of the product. (One thing that I will never, ever forgive Jobs for is popularizing that horrible bastard English term 'tangiblize'. )

The nature of IP is changing faster than the legal means to deal with it.

The Auld Grump

Again, the lawsuit was chopped up by Judge Koh because it is wildly impractical to try dozens of patents at the same time, both parties simply went with their strongest patents first.

The patent system does not allow a 'race to the patent office'. Whoever reduces an invention to practice first gets priority, not whoever files first. Problems in the patent system largely come down to a lackadaisical PTO. Patent trolls don't make patents; patent trolls buy patents. They buy patents that could conceivably read on now popular or important technology and sue for costs of litigation. They buy patents that tend to be relatively old and that slipped past the PTO for one reason or another, and then interpret them in an insane manner. So blame the Courts too for not dismissing enough cases.

Apple wasn't using the legal team against Microsoft that it is using against Samsung and Google .

The nature of technology is changing fast, and the PTO moves slowly, that's true. But the system isn't broken. There are lots of legitimate patent suits in the world, and Apple's case against Samsung was the epitome of legitimate. Samsung simply copied what it knew to be patented technology to get a jump on the market and bleed market share directly from Apple. And got a billion dollar slap on the wrist for it. That's a perversion of the patent system; when you can flagrantly violate someone's patent rights knowing that even in the worst case the benefits outweigh the costs.

These days, patents and trademarks are being weaponized, which is a problem, and companies react to that threat by acquiring their own extensive portfolios, and by patenting around their actual inventions in addition to the invention itself. Then when those companies have a dispute those defensive portfolios become offensive, and when their business starts to slip, the portfolios become a means to monetize an asset, often through litigation. But this is all eminently within the extant power of both the PTO and the Courts to curtail. The PTO needs a much larger budget and needs to deny more patent claims; the Courts need to be firmer about dismissing cases.

We are headed that way, but the law, as you point out, moves much more slowly than the pace of technological innovation. Still, it isn't like the world is burning or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:
Depends how long this latest mandatory settlement conference takes, agnosto - weeble, do you happen to know if there is a period it must go on for before the appeals can get under way?

Nope. Depends on the mediator. There may be some schedule of statement, response, statement, conference that is private between the parties and the mediator. For all we know there's a final conference scheduled next week or next month. Still, I can't expect negotiations will go on much past the end of March, unless the parties are serious about settling out.

If the briefing schedule isn't back on by the end of March I think it is safe to assume that the parties are in serious and substantive settlement discussions.

Is there any reason for CH to settle at this point? Though if money changes hands, I can see probono counsel recommending a settlement.

 agnosto wrote:
Is there any reason for CH to settle at this point? Though if money changes hands, I can see probono counsel recommending a settlement.

That's up to Chapterhouse, really.

I think it is pretty safe to assume WilmerHale is working pro bono. All the other firms were, and CHS couldn't afford to pay those Wilmer guys. So financial cost of litigation is no reason to settle; CHS has free (and darn good) representation. It also depends on what GW is offering.

As a thought experiment, let's consider the maximum that GW could possibly offer to CHS:

1: Covenant not to sue, i.e. we promise to never sue you again for any reason
2: Large sum of money
3: Public apology

That together is probably the very most GW could offer to CHS short of something unreasonable like doing the worm. If GW offered that, the only reason to not settle would be if you were determined to make case law.

But beyond something completely academic like the above, I can't really get into reasons CHS might want to settle. It would be reading tea leaves.

I was speaking hypothetically. You lawyerly types can sure be literal but I suppose you have to be.

I really don't see GW offering up any of those things so I suppose we'll be seeing some movement in the case next month or soonish.

Thanks for accommodating my curiosity.

weeble1000 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Is there any reason for CH to settle at this point? Though if money changes hands, I can see probono counsel recommending a settlement.

That's up to Chapterhouse, really.

I think it is pretty safe to assume WilmerHale is working pro bono. All the other firms were, and CHS couldn't afford to pay those Wilmer guys. So financial cost of litigation is no reason to settle; CHS has free (and darn good) representation. It also depends on what GW is offering.

As a thought experiment, let's consider the maximum that GW could possibly offer to CHS:

1: Covenant not to sue, i.e. we promise to never sue you again for any reason
2: Large sum of money
3: Public apology

That together is probably the very most GW could offer to CHS short of something unreasonable like doing the worm. If GW offered that, the only reason to not settle would be if you were determined to make case law.

But beyond something completely academic like the above, I can't really get into reasons CHS might want to settle. It would be reading tea leaves.

At this point, other than not spending any more money on this case, what would GW's incentive be to drop the suit?

To avoid precedents/law that would hurt their business?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is too late for GW to drop the case.

It has been fought, and now the argument is about how much can be changed in the appeal process.

Presumably GW believe they will get some of the roughly 75% points that went against them, changed back in their favour.

I don't know at what stage the "obiter dicta" come out and get incorporated into case law.

I meant 'settle', not 'drop'.

Or maybe 'stop attempting to appeal', or whatever!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is too late for GW to drop the case.

It has been fought, and now the argument is about how much can be changed in the appeal process.

Presumably GW believe they will get some of the roughly 75% points that went against them, changed back in their favour.

I don't know at what stage the "obiter dicta" come out and get incorporated into case law.

You can ALWAYS settle out. As long as both parties agree to settle out, the Court almost always agrees to dismiss the case. In a jury trial you can settle even whilst deliberations are ongoing. In fact, the purpose of the suspended briefing schedule is expressly to encourage the parties to discuss settlement.

Edit: Ah, I get your point. Yes, it is too late for one party to extricate themselves from the suit without the consent of both the Court and the opposing party. GW could drop its cross appeal, but that would not impact Chapterhouse's appeal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it is too late for GW to drop the case.

It has been fought, and now the argument is about how much can be changed in the appeal process.

Presumably GW believe they will get some of the roughly 75% points that went against them, changed back in their favour.

I don't know at what stage the "obiter dicta" come out and get incorporated into case law.

Obiter dicta are the parts of a decision that are said in passing - they may be persuasive but aren't binding. Side comments, hypitheticals, context etc...

The ratio decidendi is binding. It is made up of the crucial facts and law of the case.

Obiter can become binding if subsequently quoted and used in the ratio of a later case.

Not completely relevant, but it's worth pointing out that it isn't all roses for Apple in the battle against Samsung - they may have won round 1 in the US, but they've lost just as many in other jurisdictions if memory serves.

Chapterhouse is only selling in one jurisdiction afaik.

I bought stuff from Chapter House and had it sent to the UK.

NTRabbit wrote:
Not completely relevant, but it's worth pointing out that it isn't all roses for Apple in the battle against Samsung - they may have won round 1 in the US, but they've lost just as many in other jurisdictions if memory serves.

This is very accurate. Worldwide, Apple has lost as many of these suits as they have won. (Or close to it.)

Saldiven wrote:

NTRabbit wrote:
Not completely relevant, but it's worth pointing out that it isn't all roses for Apple in the battle against Samsung - they may have won round 1 in the US, but they've lost just as many in other jurisdictions if memory serves.

This is very accurate. Worldwide, Apple has lost as many of these suits as they have won. (Or close to it.)

I guess Apple had really good help in America.

Any chance we could get this thread back on topic?

Thanks!

 Alpharius wrote:
Any chance we could get this thread back on topic?

Thanks!

Certainly!

I don't see CHS settling unless he has some number in his head that he feels would convince him to just walk away from this. And I'd imagine any settlement GW would even consider would still demand that CHS cease to exist, to make it look like they won.

Edit: Don't know how a double post happened. Stupid iPhone. (Oh the irony)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:
Edit: Don't know how a double post happened. Stupid iPhone. (Oh the irony)

Arrrrrg! No double post!?! What?

I'll repost my comments later.

weeble1000 wrote:
Edit: Don't know how a double post happened. Stupid iPhone. (Oh the irony)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

weeble1000 wrote:
Edit: Don't know how a double post happened. Stupid iPhone. (Oh the irony)

Arrrrrg! No double post!?! What?

I'll repost my comments later.

Sometimes the system catches it while you're editing the second post. It seems to delete the first post, not the second, so only your edited post remains. Next time, wait a couple minutes and reload before editing to say "Double Post!".

Main thing to remember:

Dakka auto-appends your posts. If it is a true double-post you would see just one post with the message posted twice.

If you see two actual posts that didn't auto-append, then there is a glitch that you just ignore and it will go away.

The system does sometimes create double posts.

I have always assumed it was just a glitch in The Matrix.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Any chance we could get this thread back on topic?

Thanks!

Certainly!

I don't see CHS settling unless he has some number in his head that he feels would convince him to just walk away from this. And I'd imagine any settlement GW would even consider would still demand that CHS cease to exist, to make it look like they won.

I think both of your guesses are probably pretty accurate, which would mean a settlement is probably pretty unlikely.

I'm going to reproduce, in part, a post weeble made elsewhere. Discussing it further would have been OT for the thread it was in but is on-topic here.

weeble1000 wrote:
GW is sadly following a pattern that game companies have followed in the past.

And one thing that Derek has not contemplated is what effect the GW v CHS appeal will have on perceptions of the company. That appeal will be wrapped up in a year at most. It could be done as soon as the next financial report, but probably not. GW losing the CHS trial was bad for the company, but not so obviously bad to have a direct impact on the investor perceptions of the company. But a favorable result for CHS in the appeal will not go unnoticed.

If CHS is successful in its appeal it will likely make broad new case law. It will hit mainstream legal media in a big way. It will percolate to mainstream media. It will put a seal on the case with a big W for CHS and trash GW's goodwill with customers. GW could possibly face further litigation from CHS with literally millions in potential damages that GW does not have money on hand to pay. Technically, could GW pay a 5 million dollar judgment...sure, but GW does not have the spare cash on hand for a judgment like that to not be a huge problem.

If CHS succeeds in its appeal, it will give the board clear cut reasons to force out Tom Kirby. Gill Stevenson has already been let go. GW can't fire her twice.

So screw what the stock market says. I look at what the FLGS and the 7th circuit says about GW. Only a fool would say that GW is not facing significant challenges at the moment that, if handled badly, could cause significant harm to the company. GW is walking around with a huge target on its face. It survives despite efforts of competitors to harm, maim, and kill it. GW showing weakness has only and will only inspire competitors to push harder.

.... where are GWS looking at this giant possible judgement, a 5 million dollar judgement, against them? This is the first I've seen it discussed. I know it was framed as hypothetical but what is the thinking?

My guess would be some form of malicious prosecution counter-suit.

However, we could light the weeblesignal, and let him explain...

Yeah, I think the possibility of malicious litigation was brought up a while ago, but that would be an entirely new lawsuit, which Villacci said (in this thread) wasn't going to happen.

 Dheneb wrote:
Yeah, I think the possibility of malicious litigation was brought up a while ago, but that would be an entirely new lawsuit, which Villacci said (in this thread) wasn't going to happen.

All I've said about it before was that if a court rules that a plaintiff spent 3 years dragging an indigent defendant through costly litigation only to fail to bring evidence to prove threshold issues, that's pretty close to a finding of malicious litigation all by itself. Malicious litigation requires that the plaintiff knowingly did not have legitimate basis to bring a claim. It is hard to say you didn't know your claim had no merit when you brought no evidence at all to trial.

That's all I said. Then the plaintiff would have to pay attorney's fees, which, spitballing, is at least several millions in the case of Chapterhouse.

That result is simply one possible result. I have no opinion about its relative likelihood, just that it is within the realm of possibility.

So are you saying its possible for the court to look at this case and just decide GW suck and has to pay CH or would all that still require CHs lawyers to ask the court for that and argue their case?

Chapterhouse would have to file a lawsuit against Games workshop telling the court that GW are bullies etc and then GW would have an oportunity to argue their case

I'm not certain but in order for them to pursue a counter suit for being subject to malicious legal practice I believe that the defendant must be found clear of all of the claims. Even if some counts are thrown out if the plaintiff is found to have at least one valid claim in their suit then it's not ground for being classified as malicious litigation. From my understanding the only way for CHS to be able to file counter suit was if they won on appeal against all of the claims.

That's why the "throw in every plus the kitchen sink" approach is popular. They place a huge amount of items in the claim hoping at least one sticks which grants them a "win" and thus protection against counter suit. Which is part of why they kept circling so tightly around the "who won" title in the eyes of the court. Even if they lose the majority of the claims GW wants to be the winner (even if it's on as little as one item) so that their suit is able to be found as having grounds/merit.

The "winner" can also request to have the court award costs to their side in addition to any damages in the final court judgment. So basically hey we're suing you for x amount in damages plus all of our legal fees if we win.

 paulson games wrote:
I'm not certain but in order for them to pursue a counter suit for being subject to malicious legal practice I believe that the defendant must be found clear of all of the claims. Even if some counts are thrown out if the plaintiff is found to have at least one valid claim in their suit then it's not ground for being classified as malicious litigation. From my understanding the only way for CHS to be able to file counter suit was if they won on appeal against all of the claims.

That's why the "throw in every plus the kitchen sink" approach is popular. They place a huge amount of items in the claim hoping at least one sticks which grants them a "win" and thus protection against counter suit. Which is part of why they kept circling so tightly around the "who won" title in the eyes of the court. Even if they lose the majority of the claims GW wants to be the winner (even if it's on as little as one item) so that their suit is able to be found as having grounds/merit.

The "winner" can also request to have the court award costs to their side in addition to any damages in the final court judgment. So basically hey we're suing you for x amount in damages plus all of our legal fees if we win.

It's claim by claim Jon. I think you may be thinking of costs. You have to prevail on a claim to bring a litigation tort claim. But it is not determined on a whole lawsuit basis, merely claim by claim. CHS could have filed on the claims dismissed by Judge Kennelly already.

You can file a malicious litigation counterclaim and try them all in one trial, but that is because there are substantive facts in common. The jury would then render a verdict claim by claim, and for those claim found in favor of the defendant, then decide the malicious litigation issue.

The kitchen sink approach is a keep your options open, maintain flexibility, broaden discovery scope issue. Malicious litigation is really hard to prove, so most people don't worry about it. But a finding of no evidence presented...at all...is virtually ipso facto malicious litigation.

Besides, if CHS prevails on the type of threshold issues I'm talking about, and we don't even know if that is what CHS will argue on appeal, merely what we've seen in post trial motions, but if CHS were to prevail on those issues at the appellate court, CHS would have won everything.

Nothing of note happening on this or is it tied up some other way? I have been most curious about this endeavor that GW has embarked upon.

We are all curious what happens to the appeals process that is currently ongoing, but we just live with the wait.

You, on the other hand, are the definition of a cock-tease.

Yeah, I thought there was news

 RiTides wrote:
Yeah, I thought there was news

Didn't we all

There haven't been any developments, briefing is still suspended.

czakk wrote:
There haven't been any developments, briefing is still suspended.

You know what they say, 'no noose is good noose'.

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:
There haven't been any developments, briefing is still suspended.

You know what they say, 'no noose is good noose'.

unlesss you're in management, in which case it's free nooses for everyone!

Hang them all, God will know his own....

How many times do you think that this appeals hearing will be pushed back?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Hang them all, God will know his own....

How many times do you think that this appeals hearing will be pushed back?

The Auld Grump

IMHO as many times as GW can get away with.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Hang them all, God will know his own....

How many times do you think that this appeals hearing will be pushed back?

The Auld Grump

That all depends on the mediator. Lord knows what the parties are up to right now. We do know that settlement failed when the lawsuit was filed, it failed pre-trial, and it failed post-trial. That doesn't mean it will fail now, but in more than three years of litigation the parties have been unable to come to a settlement.

weeble1000 wrote:


That all depends on the mediator. Lord knows what the parties are up to right now. We do know that settlement failed when the lawsuit was filed, it failed pre-trial, and it failed post-trial. That doesn't mean it will fail now, but in more than three years of litigation the parties have been unable to come to a settlement.

I agree. I don't have the legal experience that you do but my opinion is that Chapterhouse counsel smell blood in the water and they ultimately have little to lose whereas GW has everything to lose in regards to their moat and wall, or whatever, being breached in the US for all time.

It's very hard to agree on a settlement when you've done nothing wrong and the other party wants nothing short of your company no longer existing. There's no middle ground;

Maybe one party wants to keep this up in the air, so to speak.

 loki old fart wrote:
Maybe one party wants to keep this up in the air, so to speak.

Well, it can't be kept up in the air forever. Both parties have filed appeals. The court will not hold those appeals in limbo forever, and it is principally the mediator that will determine when the briefing schedule will be reinstated. Unless the parties really are hashing out the details of a settlement, I don't think we'll see the briefing schedule suspended for more than another couple of months.

 agnosto wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:


That all depends on the mediator. Lord knows what the parties are up to right now. We do know that settlement failed when the lawsuit was filed, it failed pre-trial, and it failed post-trial. That doesn't mean it will fail now, but in more than three years of litigation the parties have been unable to come to a settlement.

I agree. I don't have the legal experience that you do but my opinion is that Chapterhouse counsel smell blood in the water and they ultimately have little to lose whereas GW has everything to lose in regards to their moat and wall, or whatever, being breached in the US for all time.

Maybe GW should not have built their moat and wall out of sand... below the high tide mark on the beach, and now the tide is rolling in....

I can picture Kirby as Canute, without the sarcasm that King Canute was trying to convey. (And that seem to have been lost by modern pundits referencing Canute - the man knew that he could not hold back the tide, and was being snarky at the flatterers in his court.)

The Auld Grump or, just maybe, Shelley's Ozymandius - Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair....

weeble1000 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Maybe one party wants to keep this up in the air, so to speak.

Well, it can't be kept up in the air forever. Both parties have filed appeals. The court will not hold those appeals in limbo forever, and it is principally the mediator that will determine when the briefing schedule will be reinstated. Unless the parties really are hashing out the details of a settlement, I don't think we'll see the briefing schedule suspended for more than another couple of months.

Can't help thinking GW want this to stay in limbo, till at least after the next financial statement. In the hope of better news. The share holders must be jittery by now.

Not sure - the stockholders may not be expecting dividends at this point, so might hold on simply to let the stock inflate again....

GW has done some things that they may well be able to spin as improvements, whether or not that is the case.

The big question becomes... how is their bottom line doing?

For 2014 I have spent around $75 on Chapterhouse models, and -$175 on GW models (selling off my old plastic Deathwing models - that used the older smaller termies from second edition Space Hulk). So I have spent more on Chapterhouse, but made more on GW.

Barring a fantastic new WHFB or WH40K in the relatively near future... I think that I am done with GW.

On the plus side, for GW, I was glad to see that they didn't decide to skip the Wood Elves entirely.

On topic - I do not think that the appeals decisions will be made in time to affect the upcoming financial report.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
On topic - I do not think that the appeals decisions will be made in time to affect the upcoming financial report.

The Auld Grump

Would it be cynical to think that whatever the delay here is might suddenly disappear as soon as the cut off for that report has passed?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
On topic - I do not think that the appeals decisions will be made in time to affect the upcoming financial report.

The Auld Grump

Would it be cynical to think that whatever the delay here is might suddenly disappear as soon as the cut off for that report has passed?

I would say it would be giving GW too much credit. GW has never demonstrated that level of strategic thinking during the course of the litigation.

I always thought Austrian courts were slow, but this is getting absurd. Do appeals in the US generally take this long to even BEGIN?

 Allod wrote:
I always thought Austrian courts were slow, but this is getting absurd. Do appeals in the US generally take this long to even BEGIN?

Postponements and continuations.... Requested by one side or another - not the court's fault.

I suspect that at this point GW is just trying to delay the inevitable - and are expecting to lose more in the appeals than they are likely to gain.

I also suspect that they will continue to do so for as long as possible, rather than delaying until after the financial report, then hurrying it along so that the stockholders have a chance to forget before the next report.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Allod wrote:
I always thought Austrian courts were slow, but this is getting absurd. Do appeals in the US generally take this long to even BEGIN?

Postponements and continuations.... Requested by one side or another - not the court's fault.

I suspect that at this point GW is just trying to delay the inevitable - and are expecting to lose more in the appeals than they are likely to gain.

I also suspect that they will continue to do so for as long as possible, rather than delaying until after the financial report, then hurrying it along so that the stockholders have a chance to forget before the next report.

The Auld Grump

Actually, exactly the Court's fault. The parties are engaged in court-ordered mediation. Now, it could be that GW is pretending to be reasonable to string along the mediation process, but that would be a complex and risky game. I doubt that's what is going on. More likely is that the mediator has the parties working on some sort of document/response/meeting schedule. As I said previously, if the process is strung out past the end of May, there might be something substantive going on in the settlement negotiations. It hasn't even been three months since the Court suspended the briefing schedule indefinitely.

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Allod wrote:
I always thought Austrian courts were slow, but this is getting absurd. Do appeals in the US generally take this long to even BEGIN?

Postponements and continuations.... Requested by one side or another - not the court's fault.

I suspect that at this point GW is just trying to delay the inevitable - and are expecting to lose more in the appeals than they are likely to gain.

I also suspect that they will continue to do so for as long as possible, rather than delaying until after the financial report, then hurrying it along so that the stockholders have a chance to forget before the next report.

The Auld Grump

Actually, exactly the Court's fault. The parties are engaged in court-ordered mediation. Now, it could be that GW is pretending to be reasonable to string along the mediation process, but that would be a complex and risky game. I doubt that's what is going on. More likely is that the mediator has the parties working on some sort of document/response/meeting schedule. As I said previously, if the process is strung out past the end of May, there might be something substantive going on in the settlement negotiations. It hasn't even been three months since the Court suspended the briefing schedule indefinitely.

Heh - I was more blaming Moskin for delaying by stringing along the mediation process - not so much GW itself. A risky ploy that may redound against his own client does not seem below him.

But then, the more that I read of the man... the less that I like him....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Allod wrote:
I always thought Austrian courts were slow, but this is getting absurd. Do appeals in the US generally take this long to even BEGIN?

Postponements and continuations.... Requested by one side or another - not the court's fault.

I suspect that at this point GW is just trying to delay the inevitable - and are expecting to lose more in the appeals than they are likely to gain.

I also suspect that they will continue to do so for as long as possible, rather than delaying until after the financial report, then hurrying it along so that the stockholders have a chance to forget before the next report.

The Auld Grump

Actually, exactly the Court's fault. The parties are engaged in court-ordered mediation. Now, it could be that GW is pretending to be reasonable to string along the mediation process, but that would be a complex and risky game. I doubt that's what is going on. More likely is that the mediator has the parties working on some sort of document/response/meeting schedule. As I said previously, if the process is strung out past the end of May, there might be something substantive going on in the settlement negotiations. It hasn't even been three months since the Court suspended the briefing schedule indefinitely.

Heh - I was more blaming Moskin for delaying by stringing along the mediation process - not so much GW itself. A risky ploy that may redound against his own client does not seem below him.

But then, the more that I read of the man... the less that I like him....

The Auld Grump

Negotiating settlement typically involves way too much involvement from the clinet for it to be srategically directed by an attorney in a substantive way. When it comes to settlement, attorneys are usually on a short leash with specific goals and firm parameters. And if you think GW is letting Mosking plan anything you'd be off your rocker. Not after his performance in the trial.

But then again, this is GW we're talking about...

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But then again, this is GW we're talking about...

Yea, GW. The company that can't tie its shoe without direct permission from Tom Kirby.

weeble1000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But then again, this is GW we're talking about...

Yea, GW. The company that can't tie its shoe without direct permission from Tom Kirby.

When was the last time you saw signs of competence from Kirby?

Hell... Kirby is the wellspring of incompetence for GW - that whole Castle Wall and Moat nonsense, built on IP cobbled from a dozen sources, both historical and fictional.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But then again, this is GW we're talking about...

Yea, GW. The company that can't tie its shoe without direct permission from Tom Kirby.

When was the last time you saw signs of competence from Kirby?

Hell... Kirby is the wellspring of incompetence for GW - that whole Castle Wall and Moat nonsense, built on IP cobbled from a dozen sources, both historical and fictional.

The Auld Grump

All I'm saying is that one should not associate incompetence with giving a lawyer too much latitude in this instance because Kirby's brand of incompetence is inability to change, trust, or deligate.

weeble1000 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But then again, this is GW we're talking about...

Yea, GW. The company that can't tie its shoe without direct permission from Tom Kirby.

When was the last time you saw signs of competence from Kirby?

Hell... Kirby is the wellspring of incompetence for GW - that whole Castle Wall and Moat nonsense, built on IP cobbled from a dozen sources, both historical and fictional.

The Auld Grump

All I'm saying is that one should not associate incompetence with giving a lawyer too much latitude in this instance because Kirby's brand of incompetence is inability to change, trust, or delegate.

You left out willful ignorance, I think. He does not know the nature of his own products and IP, and is only concerned with controlling said IP and his company's lead in the market.

We will see - but Moskin got up to enough mischief in the case itself, and was allowed to get away with some of it, that I would not be surprised to see it continue. I can all too easily see GW making a blanket request of Moskin and Co. to delay the appeals as long as possible, regardless of consequences.

But you are right - in theory this should be handled in close conjunction with the client, with the client's voice being the one heard. Mediation is a chance to reach an acceptable and face saving compromise. However, I just do not see GW having enough competence to reign in Moskin, while I can see them egging him on, even at their own cost.

It is more than likely that I am biased against GW, and am unwilling to grant them any shred of legitimate compromise in the mediation.

Hell, GW at some point should have, and probably was, informed that this was not a case that would improve their situation, yet they bulled on for years and made any number of... choices of dubious legality and morality in pursuit of destroying Chapterhouse.

Your opinion is more likely to be true, but without transcripts of the proceedings... we are both guessing - yours is just the much more informed guess.

I do wish that the attempt at mediation would either be dealt with or abandoned, but, at the same time, I can see the court's frustration of this long and acrimonious case being fought over... toy soldiers.

I am certain that the judge felt like standing on top of his podium and shouting 'Grow up and stop playing with toys!!1!'

The Auld Grump

Is there any sort of an upcoming date? or was this effectively swept to the curb?

 paulson games wrote:
Is there any sort of an upcoming date? or was this effectively swept to the curb?

As far as the docket is concerned the case is still in court-mandated mediation.

02/07/2014 10 ORDER: Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. [10] RJS [6550870] [14-1027, 14-1118] (CD)

My guess is that if the case is not out of mediation by the end of May (or thereabouts) it could mean that the parties are engaged in substantive, productive settlement discussions. But that is only a guess based on what I have observed in terms of mandatory mediation in other cases.

I don't think the case has been swept to the curb. That said, if there's no activity on the docket in the next few weeks I would be curious to know what is going on behind the scenes.

Sorry for teasing by posting, but I have a relevant question for the legal minded here.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/its-payback-time-as-findthebest-wrests-legal-fees-from-patent-troll

Given the fee-shifting rules, couldn't this be ruled an "exceptional" case - especially if Chapterhouse appeals and wins?

rigeld2 wrote:
Sorry for teasing by posting, but I have a relevant question for the legal minded here.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/06/its-payback-time-as-findthebest-wrests-legal-fees-from-patent-troll

Given the fee-shifting rules, couldn't this be ruled an "exceptional" case - especially if Chapterhouse appeals and wins?

It doesn't seem like it needs to be "extraordinary" if Chapterhouse succeeds in its appeal. Chapterhouse has argued that GW provided zero evidence of copyright infringement for a majority of the claims. I have trouble imagining a denial of reasonable attorney fees when a case against an indigent defendant results in a directed verdict due to an utter failure to present any evidence to support dozens of claims made in the course of a week long trial.

That of course would be premised on the 7th circuit court of appeals ruling that a witness with no direct knowledge of the creation of a work is unable to provide evidence of protected expression.

In any case, the article is very interesting. US courts are beginning to come down harder on patent trolls. The judiciary doesn't want the legislators to deal with the problem and muck it up. Similarly, as in the New Egg litigation, companies are starting to become wiser about how to deal with patent trolls other than by rolling over and paying nuisance settlements. The USPTO needs to get on the train too. The trifecta of courts, the USPTO, and defendants seriously addressing the persistent problem of patent troll litigation would break its back.

What page is the verdict on? Or link to page? It would be nice if the original post was updated or page that the verdict was on was added to thread title. Thanks.

 Perturabo's Chosen wrote:
What page is the verdict on? Or link to page? It would be nice if the original post was updated or page that the verdict was on was added to thread title. Thanks.

Which specific verdict? There were many, many, many different issues being decided, and some went in GW's favor and some went in Chapterhouse's. I asked if anyone had a list a couple of times, but never heard anything back so I stopped asking.

[disclaimer] I have no respect for BoLS [/disclaimer]

Here is a link that has, what I believe to be, a fairly decent summery:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33351-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Verdict

I think it's accurate and all, just stay out of the comments section.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh god... I actually did wander into those comments.

It's... horrifyingly beautiful. Like a train wreck.

Ugh. I made the mistake of jumping to the last few pages...almost curious how they got stuck on drunk Eurovision ramblings....nah, never mind.

It was amusing that right after the Winston & Strawn press release celebrating their successful defence of the legitimate use of trademarks by Chapter House, a user wrote a comment on purpose as far as I can tell that Chapter House had stolen GW's trademarks.

Thank you for the link. The attorney's summary proved very insightful, and I am please that ChapterHouse and other companies like them now have a legal precedent of protection for the creation of after market "add-on" parts.

 Perturabo's Chosen wrote:
Thank you for the link. The attorney's summary proved very insightful, and I am please that ChapterHouse and other companies like them now have a legal precedent of protection for the creation of after market "add-on" parts.

As a caveat, so far there is only a lower court finding, which does not equate to broadly applicable precedent. There were also some bad opinions and findings in the case, at least in my view insomuch as the wargaming market is concerned.

The appeal has the potential to set much stronger precedent, especially as it would come out of the 7th Circuit, which has a very strong track record with copyright and trademark decisions. The 7th Circuit is generally given a bit more consideration when it comes to copyright and trademark rulings. Rulings in one Federal Circuit Court are not binding on different Circuit Courts, but decisions by a Court of Appeals are generally given more weight, and when it comes to copyright and trademark cases, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is generally given a measure of especial weight.

As I see it, what the case thus far has demonstrated is that GW cannot put up, and has since filing the lawsuit largely shut up. The case has for the past three years been a bulwark against further litigation by GW. It has monopolized the company's resources. It has also shown GW that no assertion of intellectual property rights comes without a cost, and combined with the Spots debacle (which amusingly came up in the trial record in the Chapterhouse case...prep your witnesses much GW?) GW has seen steep costs both financial and in terms of brand perception.

The trial showed GW that the company can't just say what it wants and get away with it, and there have been a cascade of little reactions by GW since the trial result. Astra Militarum is one glaring example. Of course, GW also failed to achieve a finding of trademark infringement on the alleged "Termagant" mark.

The trial result has also provided the market with an effective road map to a successful defense against the types of claims GW threw at Chapterhouse Studios. It has helped to clarify areas that are easy to defend and areas that are more difficult to defend. You see a lot more "compatible with" marketing language in the industry today, and companies are less shy about using GW's trademarks.

The litigation also severely increased GW's potential risk in filing another, similar lawsuit. Any defendant, anywhere, has a road map to a defense, and the docket is replete with the fruits of very, very expensive discovery that defendants can now make use of much more cheaply. For example, should GW ever file another lawsuit like this the company will have to re-fight the toys-are-not-subject-to-copyright battle, which has the potential to cut the knees out of the company's copyrights. GW didn't win that fight in the Chapterhouse case, except to the extent that the Court decided to sidestep it. But a value-packed expert report is hanging out there in the public domain; low hanging fruit for any defendant to pluck.

GW's witnesses (and the company has few alternative options) have also pigeon-holed themselves with wretched deposition testimony that, again, is in the public domain and ripe for a defendant to exploit.

And the biggest thing right now is that GW is still immersed in this fight and completely unable to extricate itself without the willingness of Chapterhouse Studios to allow it. Chapterhouse Studios has filed an appeal, and has some seriously big guns to fight that battle. GW can't simply drop the appeal and slink away. The tables are turned and now it is GW fighting for the survival of the company, rather than Chapterhouse Studios. GW faces the potential of literally millions of dollars of exposure that could come home to roost at a time when the company is in a bad cash position and struggling.

GW has to fight, and fight hard, which means spending lots of money, or risk allowing a powerhouse firm to walk all over the appeal process with impunity. And as I said, GW cannot get out of this mess without the sufferance of Chapterhouse Studios; a company that GW tried to kill run by a guy who GW called a thief and a liar.

The next 6 months will be interesting indeed.

Edit: And to point something else out, GW has repeatedly seen its assertions of intellectual property met with pro-bono representation. Chapterhouse Studios has been represented now by three major US law firms and the EFF quickly came to the aid of Spots the Space Marine. Chapterhouse Studios got Winston and Strawn on board when the lawsuit was first filed, Marshal, Gertsein, & Borun came on board when GW filed a second lawsuit against Chaprterhouse Studios, and WilmerHale came on board when the appeal was filed.

Quite literally, at every major phase of this litigation, every time the game has changed, a different major US law firm has come to the aid of Chapterhouse Studios. GW faces the risk that should it file another lawsuit, it could wind up facing another spate of pro-bono representation. In effect, this case has blessed the aftermarket accessory industry as qualifying for pro-bono representation. In a landmark move, Winston and Strawn took on a pro-bono client that is not, by the strictest definition, indigent. Chapterhouse Studios was merely indigent to defend itself against GW's overblown case. But now the cat is out of the bag. Any attorney can now go to the pro-bono committee at their firm and point to Winston and Strawn, Marshall, Gerstein, & Borun, WilmerHale, the Electronic Freedom Foundation, and Lawyers for the Creative Arts to justify taking on such a case pro-bono.

Nice analysis, weeble.

I hope companies are able to continue making related or "compatible with" kits. I just bought a few items from Chapterhouse last month, both of which GW has never produced: a tyranid defense line, and a spore pod (I'll be converting it for terrain or hopefully a tyranid bastion!).

Looking forward to seeing the appeals process move forward.

Very interesting analysis. Curious to see how it all plays out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
[disclaimer] I have no respect for BoLS [/disclaimer]

Here is a link that has, what I believe to be, a fairly decent summery:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33351-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Verdict

Thanks for the link! Does anyone know if there is a point-by-point summary available somewhere?

Isn't a verdict like this public domain? Where would one go to get all the specific details?

Click on "filter thread" by Weeble's name. He did a very detailed description back when the verdict came out.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Very interesting analysis. Curious to see how it all plays out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:
[disclaimer] I have no respect for BoLS [/disclaimer]

Here is a link that has, what I believe to be, a fairly decent summery:
http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33351-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Verdict

Thanks for the link! Does anyone know if there is a point-by-point summary available somewhere?

Isn't a verdict like this public domain? Where would one go to get all the specific details?

You could get it by registering with ECF/Pacer. But most of the court documents have been put onto Recap.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html


Actually - now that I've been back to the recap page - are there transcripts of the trial waaaay down at the bottom that haven't been discussed yet?

For those who are interested - what Czakk is referring to are the actual in session transcripts of the trial (to include witness testimony from GW muckety mucks).

420 starts testimony with Merret and he talks through all of 421 and into 422:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.420.0.pdf

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.421.0.pdf

422 also has the Naismith Deposition and Andrew Jones testimony:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.422.0.pdf

423 continues Jones and has Gill Stevenson and Nick Villacci:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.423.0.pdf

424 continues Nick and has Robert Lippman as well as the Tomas Fiertek deposition:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.424.0.pdf

425 has the Wyatt Traina and John Blanche depositions, Jeffrey Nagy, Carl James Grindley testimony

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.425.0.pdf

426 has the William Brewster, Neil John Hodgson, Gill Stevenson, Jes Goodwin testimony:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.426.0.pdf

427 is sort of the end of the more interesting bits with the closing arguments:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.427.0.pdf

Well, it is all in the public record now. Thanks Sean.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll cherry pick some gems.

Let's start with this one:

[Merrett] I've lost particularly -- of particular interest to
us on this is -- it sounds crazy to us, but it's that detail
there which we think is sort of characteristic of a Games
Workshop Lasgun.
Q. The end of the muzzle?
A. The end of the muzzle, yeah. I'm pointing to the end of
the muzzle break on the Games Workshop Lasgun illustration.

That right there is GW's 30b6 witness testifying under oath that to him and all of GW one of GW's claims in a jury trial "sounds crazy."

Of course, then there's the fact that his testimony was that the barrel shroud is "sort of characteristic" of a Games Workshop lasgun. Sort of. Sort. Of. In a copyright infringement claim.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is another fun one:

[Moskin] Let's call up Plaintiff's Exhibit 1020, Page 38. In your testimony today, you said that you were inspired by something called a Cthulhu and a brain bug. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In making your Ymgarl model heads.
A. Yes.
Q. And can you show me anywhere on this page where you refer to your Ymgarl model heads as Cthulhu or brain bugs?
A. Right there, sir.

Note that the answer said plaintiff attorney was looking for there was "No."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gill Stevenson: Witness Extraordinaire

Q. And my question is you only examined a handful of actual
products in deciding what claims to bring; is that right?
A. I don't think the examination of the products was relevant
to the decision on what claims to bring.
Q. But that's not my question. Do you remember the question?
A. Yeah, but I don't think it makes sense.
Q. Well, do you understand the question?
A. Do you want to repeat it for me?
Q. Of course. Games Workshop only examined a handful of
Chapterhouse's actual products before deciding what claims to
bring in this lawsuit; is that right?
A. That's a slightly different question, but that is a yes.
Q. That is a yes?
A. Yes.
Q. Thank you.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Now, Ms. Stevenson, you're aware that Chapterhouse's
attorneys were permitted to inspect Games Workshop's reference
materials earlier this year; is that right?
A. Yes, that's right.
Q. And that inspection took place at Games Workshop's
headquarters in Nottingham; is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. And you were there for that inspection, weren't you,
Ms. Stevenson?
A. I was.
Q. And when Chapterhouse's attorney arrived for the inspection,
is it true that all the reference materials had been boxed up in
blue boxes?
A. Yeah, blue crates.
Q. Blue crates. Approximately 200 blue crates?
A. Approximately 200 blue crates.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Before we get to those e-mails, it's true, isn't it, that
Games Workshop has no evidence of confusion as to products it
added to the case in the second phase; is that right?
A. Yeah. I mean, the jury have heard quite a lot about the
forums that people who are fans of Warhammer 40,000 look at and
post on, and actually -- I know you're not allowed to look at
the Internet, but if you were allowed to look at the Internet,
what you would see is an awful lot of speculation about this
case, and actually our customers, our staff, and even just
people who are interested all know about this case and have for
a very long time. So, the likelihood of there being any
confusion where there's such a publicly well known case, it's
just not really very likely because people know.
Q. But, Ms. Stevenson, you haven't presented any evidence of
confusion as to the products added in the second phase of the
case, have you?
A. No.

I wonder why she was looking for new opportunities two months after the verdict...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm sorry...Gill's testimony is really low hanging fruit:

Now, Ms. Stevenson, as you recall, you testified that
this chart was put together at your direction by Games
Workshop's hobby team, and they painted and posed the Games
Workshop figures on the right column to look like the colors
and poses of the Chapterhouse products, is that right?
A Almost. The hobby team didn't put the chart together, but
they did build and paint the model.
Q And you said that you found this confusing when you see
them side by side like this?
A I find it compelling.
Q You said you found it confusing, correct?
A I said customers could find it confusing.
Q But you haven't offered any evidence that customers have
ever been confused by these two products, have you?
A Well, they haven't seen these two images side by side, so
they couldn't be.
Q So that's a no?
A Um...

Except of course that the fething JURY has now seen those deliberately constructed for litigation images wherein, according to the testimony of Ms. Stevenson, the GW hobby team was instructed by the GW legal team to copy paint jobs and model posing of Chapterhouse's products. Of course Judge Kennelly thought that this was perfectly okay to show to the jury.

'So...you had your guys create for litigation images that have never before been seen by any member of the public in which you instructed the artists to emulate the unique artistic choices of someone you are suing for copyright infringement for the express purpose of demonstrating how, when such elements that are expressly not part of the claims you are making have been copied by you, the two products look a whole lot similar...well that sounds okay to me.'

The whole trial have the markings of a farce rather than an actual legal proceeding.

Q And, Ms. Stevenson, can you please identify for me,
focusing your attention on the Games Workshop figurine, the
trademark that appears on that figure that Games Workshop is
claiming in this case?
A The figure is an Eldar Farseer figure, but the trademark
would appear on the product or on the website.
Q And --
A This isn't being offered for sale, so there is no
trademark on it.
Q So on the figure in the Games Workshop column, there is no
trademark that Games Workshop is claiming in this case, is
that right?
A No. That figure isn't being offered for sale in that
format.

And, again, you said that this was -- the Games
Workshop model was painted for demonstrative purposes in the
pose and color schemes of Chapterhouse, Chapterhouse's models,
is that right?
A That's right, yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q And looking at the last sentence of that paragraph, it
says:
"I'm looking at their Space Marine shoulder pads
here, Salamander, Luna Wolves, et cetera, which look
reasonable enough, but perhaps lack the sharpness and detail
of, quote, unquote, official Games Workshop products."
Do you see that?
A It says "GW," but, yes.
Q In that last sentence, the person's distinguishing the
Chapterhouse products that he saw from, quote, unquote,
official GW products, isn't he?
A Yes, but the key is in the following question, isn't it?

Q Okay. And looking back up to the email header, do you see
the address where it says the email address is at an
@Yahoo.co.uk?
A I do.
Q And I believe a moment ago you indicated that that would
indicate a U.K. email address, is that right?
A That's right.
Q So do you have any reason to believe this individual was
in the U.S.?
A No, but Chapterhouse Studios were.
Q But the individual sending you the email reporting about
it was not?
A Not so far as I'm aware.

Q This -- do you consider this to be evidence of confusion?
A I don't think he's necessarily confused. He's clearly
unhappy.
Q So he doesn't appear confused to you?
A No.
Q Okay.

Q Can you pull up the -- go up a little bit to the blank
space in the middle of the page, okay, and pull up from there
down.
Ms. Stevenson, it appears you forwarded that last
email, and we see a message here:
"And another one who clearly is not confused,
exclamation point."
Do you see that?
A I do see that. That was an email to my external lawyers,
yes.
Q Your external lawyers?
A Yes, and it was an email which was following an earlier
email which I sent two seconds earlier referring to someone
who was confused. So it was here's one who is and here's one
who isn't.
Q And that's your name underneath where I just read,
"another one who clearly is not confused"?
A Yes. One who was, one who wasn't, as I said.
Q So that's your name right there?
A That's right.

Q So, Ms. Stevenson, what you are telling us that in the
five years that you have been aware of Mr. Villacci and
Chapterhouse Studios, that you have received these three
emails that you think are evidence of confusion, is that
right?
A Yes, and they're all prior to his issuing the court
proceedings.
Q And what is the relevance of that?
A Well, the public knowledge afterwards would mean that
people wouldn't be confused.
Q So the litigation itself has mitigated any likelihood of
confusion; is that fair to say?

Q And so you have identified three emails that you consider
to be evidence of confusion, is that right?
A Absolutely.
Q And two of those emails were sent from what appears to be
U.K. email addresses?
A That's right.
Q And the third one didn't show the sender's email address
at all, did it?
A It didn't.
Q Okay. And Games Workshop has no way of knowing if any of
these three individuals were in the United States, does it?
A No.
Q And the most recent of those three emails was dated
February 15th, 2010, is that right?
A I don't know. Sorry.
Q Well, we can go back through them, if you would like.
A Not really. Yes, we can do that.

Low. Hanging. Fruit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merrett Knows DakkaDakka exists:

Q In any particular types of places on the Internet have you
heard?
A Oh, on forums about Games Workshop, on places like
Dakkadakka, WarSeer, Bolter and Chainsword, loads.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merrett's end of testimony narrative:

Q What do you mean by that?
A Well, without permission. I mean, Mr. Villacci might
claim to be a fan of our products. He might claim to be an
actual -- a hobbyist. He might claim to be someone who
actually understands what it is to collect and play our games.
But if he had any notion, any inkling of what it means to be a
fan, he'd know darn well that every single thing we put in
every single one of our books, every single one of our codex,
every unit, every character, every model, every vehicle is a
model that we intend to make and sell.
So when you hear his counsel telling you, oh, there
are gaps, he's doing our fans a favor, let me tell you, he's
not doing our fans a favor. He's lining his own pockets at
our expense. Where's his 31 years of development of our IP?
Where is it? He can't show you any creative of his own
creations.
MS. HARTZELL: Objection, narrative, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's ask another question at this point.
MR. MOSKIN: I think we can conclude the testimony
now.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
- you can't testify as to what
materials the designers looked at for any of these products,
to design any of the products that are allegedly infringed
here today?
A I can testify that I know what they're expected to do and
how they're expected to do that and what instructions they are
expected to follow, and I can testify that those instructions
involve generating original ideas and using Games Workshop
original ideas as the wellspring and source of all the design
work they do.
Q But you can't testify that they all did that?
A No, of course I can't testify they all did that.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q Let's talk specifically about one of the products that you
identified as wholly original to Games Workshop. The item is
the product No. 112, the gun-Halberd weapon in Exhibit 120,
page 104 -- or 121 -- 1020, page 104.
Do you recall testifying about this product?
A Yes.
Q And you testified that it was a wholly original Games
Workshop design?
A Wholly original Games Workshop idea, and therefore that's
a copy of a Games Workshop idea, and the expression of the
idea is illustrated opposite.
Q On the right-hand side?
A Yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q You testified that the Tau race presented a departure in
style from the already existing 40K races; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q So the designers of the Tau race did not draw inspiration
from the look -- for the look of the Tau from within Games
Workshop?
A That's correct. They looked for it inside their own
imaginations.
Q You also testified that you wanted to look very sci-fi,
correct?
A Yes, probably.
Q And by sci-fi you were referring to science fiction?
A As popularly understood, yes.
Q And specifically science fiction created by third parties?
A No, I didn't say that.
Q It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau
universe -- or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you've
already testified, correct?
A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something
from scratch, you know. That's our stock in trade. That's
what we do for a living.
Q So you don't believe that any external robots were
considered by any designer of any Tau product?
A Not to my knowledge, no.
Q But do you have knowledge what they referred to?
A Well, they didn't refer to anything. What we did is we
generated concept drawings, and the guys that were working on
the project brainstormed concepts of -- for the Tau idea.
Q And none of them had ever seen a robot?
A Well, that's preposterous to suggest, isn't it?
Q It is.
A Yeah, of course it is.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q So you can't say which elements of the Tau race were
original?
A To the best of my knowledge, all the elements of the Tau
race -- of the Tau mortals were original.
Q But we've already established that you don't have
knowledge of what the designers looked to in creating their
design?
A No, no. A lack of knowledge doesn't imply a positive
affirmation of another fact. That's not logical. Just
because I don't know that they didn't look at any -- cause I
can't say they didn't look at anything else doesn't mean that
they did look at something else. It just means that I don't
know whether they looked at it or not.
Q So you don't know what was original?
A The brief was to create original ideas, and our guys
generated concept work. I've got no way of absolutely
completely one hundred percent knowing if those -- if the
elements in the conceptual work that they did were original,
but that was the objective. That was the brief. That's what
they were all actually working towards doing. And that's what
they all said they were doing.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q But that idea, the idea of having a warrior inside a robot
battle suit, that's not original to Games Workshop?
A No, that's not original to Games Workshop.
Q And the idea behind the Eldar was Elves in Space? You
testified to that yesterday?
A Yes.
Q And you also testified about in the development of
Warhammer 40K the creation of rankings within chapters, and
you said, "it's intended to feel like the kind of organization
that a real military unit might have," correct?
A Yes. That's correct.
Q So you were aware of real military units when you decided
to incorporate that idea into Games Workshop's Warhammer
40,000?
A Yes, of course.
Q And you drew inspiration from the hierarchy of real
military units?
A Yes. I would say that would be fair.
Q And at the time you were working to create the Space
Marines, you were familiar enough with the military to know
that they use a hierarchy?
A Yes.
Q And when you were designing products for Warhammer 40K,
you were familiar with the military's use of tanks?
A Of course.
Q And Games Workshop's tanks are intended to feel like the
kind of tanks that a real military unit might have?
A No. They're intended to be fantastical, other worldly,
bizarre, strange, futuristic interpretations of what military
tanks could be.
Q But did you draw inspiration from real tanks used by the
military?
A I wouldn't say that deliberately, but, yes, I think that's
fair to say, inspiration from.
Q And that would be true for guns as well, that you drew
inspiration from real world guns?
A Yes, both things would be true.
Q Did you -- and you referenced real guns when designing
products for Games Workshop?
A No. Not especially, no.
Q You don't believe that any designer in Games Workshop ever
looked at a picture of a real world gun when --
A I didn't say --
Q -- designing guns --
A I didn't say that.
Q -- for Games Workshop?
A What you asked me is if they drew references from real
guns.
Q I asked if they referenced any real guns.
A Asked if they referenced real guns. What do you mean by
reference? Qualify the question.
Q Look at during the design process.
A I can't swear to that. I can't say that under oath.
I know our designers looked at guns, and I know
they're involved in the design process. But when they're
designing a thing, I can't testify that they looked at guns or
they looked at anything whilst they were designing that thing
because that's -- I don't know what they looked at whilst they
were designing it.
Q But do you know that the designers were aware of real life
guns when designing guns for Games Workshop?
A Yeah. Our designers are clued up chaps, and they are
aware of such things, I suppose. It's impossible to not be
aware of things like guns and robots and tanks and military
formations.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q But you waited until 2010 to file the lawsuit?
A Waited. My understanding is that our small but very
hard-working legal team had been working on the case for quite
a long time before that.
Q But you waited to file it until December 21st of 2010?
A As I said, my understanding is that the team had been
working on the case for a long time up to that point, but I
don't know the specifics of why that date and why that time.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A The reason why I said the name's of concern because it
actually is a direct reference to our power armor and the
shoulder pad. And if you want to go, okay, so, if I need to
understand what that product is, the label on it really,
hopefully, provides that information for me and makes me go,
oh, what other power armor shoulder pads do I know and where
are they sitting, and that's why the name is a concern.
Q But you're not claiming that you own a trademark in power
armor, right?
A I don't think we are claiming that at all, no.
Q So when you testified this morning about items in the
names that were of concern to you, you don't know whether or
not you were asserting that you have a trademark in those
names?
A I'm not personally, no, because I'm not testifying on the
trademark stuff. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. Some of the names are
of concern because they're trademark infringement. Some of
the names are of concern because they're actually our names.
Whether or not there are trademark or not, they're actually --
they're identifying -- they're helping us to identify which
Games Workshop products are actually we think are infringe --
are being infringed.
Q But if you don't have trademark rights in the name, then
you don't have any legal remedy for anyone -- or even a basis
for a legal claim for anyone else using those words, right?
A Well, technically I have a copyright claim in it if it was
using our names in a form that was -- but I'm not sure
that's -- that's by the by, isn't it? There's no point going
down that road. No, I suppose not.
Q So you have no basis to complain that Chapterhouse has
used the word power armor in this product title?
A No. That's why it's not highlighted in yellow.
Q But you brought it up as a concern even though it's not
relevant to a trademark claim?
A Oh, okay. I concede that. Yes. Sorry.
Q And you were testifying about the copyright claims,
correct?
A Yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q So if you look only at the product itself, for those
products where you brought in the concerns about the name, if
you look only at the product itself, that's not sufficient to
establish a claim?
A No, I didn't say that. I said it's the accumulation of
all those things makes the product the thing that -- it
highlights the importance of the product to us. It's what
makes us focus on those products and look them, isn't it?
Q But that's not an element of the copyright infringement
analysis, whether you think it's important or not.
A We're not claiming that it is, though.
Q You're not claiming copy infringement with respect to --
A Sorry. Trademark infringement.
Q I'm asking you now about the copyright infringement. You
testified about the names that were used. But whether or not
a name is used does not make the product that's accused of
infringing any more or less similar to the image that you've
shown on the right-hand side?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q But you've not identified either of those on the ground as
being the ones that are infringed, correct?
A No. It was the one flying through the air above the
creature shown.
Q So not the one in the foreground that's close up that we
can see?
A No, because that's a smashed up, broken one that's crashed
into the ground.
Q And the remnants that you can see on the side are linear?
Would you say they are straight pieces?
A I think the artist was trying to imply it was kind of like
wet goo.
Q What's your basis for that understanding?
A Because I just don't -- after looking at it, thinking it's
kind of indistinct, isn't it, and I think it looks like wet --
it looks like it's -- the way that it's stretching and stuff
around the creature's legs, I just thought it was -- I've
always assumed it was supposed to be kind of like horrible
sort of sticky, sticky goo.
Q So you agree that the sole image that is your basis for
copyright infringement is rather indistinct with respect to
the design of the mycetic spore?
A It is rather indistinct, yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This one is awesome:

Q On the Chapterhouse product you see an oval opening on
three sides?
A Yes.
Q Where can I find that in the image that it is allegedly
copied from?
A If you close your eyes and scrunch your face up, you might
be able to image there's one there, but you can't see it, can
you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q Do you still have your laser pointer?
A I do, yes.
Q Could you point to where those are on the spore?
A Well, yeah. I mean, this is a -- it's fuzzy and
indistinct, but that's what the artist was referring to.
Q You're not the artist?
A No.
Q So you don't know what the artist was referring to?
A You know that's what they were referring to because that
was their instruction, refer to Tyranid detail and information
on it.
Q So it's your position that Chapterhouse copied that image
to create this work?
A If that -- yeah. I've got to admit it's not the strongest
of our claims, but if our picture didn't exist and if this
thing didn't exist, that wouldn't exist. So Chapterhouse was
inspired by this picture. It looked at this picture, and it
made a model to fulfill that thing. That's what our case is
there.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
I say it's not to strongest claim that we've got, but
that's -- if our picture didn't exist, if this page in our
codex didn't exist, that model would not exist.
Q You talked about the difference between referencing and
copying. Is that difference that referencing is only using
the underlying idea?
A I don't -- sorry, I can't remember making that distinction
between referencing and copying.
Q When we were talking about whether or not Chapterhouse
copied this product.
A Oh, I see. Sorry.
Q They referenced it.
A Now I don't know how I'd describe it. They looked at this
picture and they make a model to -- to not -- not look like
that, like our picture, I suppose.
Yeah, as I said, it's not our strongest copyright
case, but that's --


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. So, as it's sold, it does not include the imagery that is
shown in the bottom right-hand side of the Games Workshop
product identified as PEX858 at GW0015353?
A. That would appear to be correct, yes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Is it your contention that the Chapterhouse product copies
from this Games Workshop product?
A. No. I can't remember -- that's probably --
Q. So, you don't believe -- so, there is no copyright
infringement claim as to this product?
A. No. I didn't talk about that product. This is the first
time today that that product's been on the screen.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
A. If you didn't know what they were, you'd be hard-pressed to
figure out what they were for. It's a bit random, if you didn't
know what purpose they were intended for.
Q. So, in order to sell them, Chapterhouse has to identify the
purpose for which they are intended.
A. Well, clearly, that's what they're doing. The question is
whether that's legal and whether that's appropriate for them to
use the trademarks, which I don't know. You'd have to talk to
Mr. Jones about that later on because he'll have a better idea
about whether that's -- whether or not we think that's --
Q. But as you mentioned when you --
A. -- a fair use of our trademark.
Q. As you mentioned when I read the name, conversion kit for
Storm Raven, it's apparent from that name that the product being
sold is intended for use with the Games Workshop product.
A. Yes.
Q. So, the use of the words Storm Raven in the name actually
refers to Games Workshop's product.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. And when you were describing -- or when you identified the
parts that are added to the Storm Raven by the Chapterhouse
product, once those are put together, the overall shape of the
Storm Raven is different, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. It changes the look of the product?
A. In my opinion, it spoils the look of the product, yes.
Q. And it no longer has that somewhat distinctive helicopter
type shape that you mentioned?
A. That's correct. It doesn't


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Looking at the Chapterhouse product on the left-hand side
and the three different heads, as compared to the product, the
miniature designed by Jes Goodwin and Mark Harrison identified
as PEX117 at GW001439, which of the Chapterhouse heads do you
contend is a copy of the head on that figure?
A. Well, they're all basically the same idea on this. It's a
monstrous head with horrible tentacly attachments in sort of a
normal jaw. There's no specific literal exact copy of that
head.
Q. So, it's the idea of the monstrous head, tentacly head, that
you allege is infringed?
A. Yes.

Q. But the expressions of the different heads vary from the
Games Workshop product?
A. This is a trademark issue, this one, for us. This is a
trademark issue first and foremost. I mean --
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I think there's some form of copyright claim. I think that
needs to be tested.
Q. So, which of the Chapterhouse heads do you contend is copied
from the PEX117 product?
A. I don't know which ones are copied, but they actually are --
I can't say any of them are directly copied from the head.

The GW boys need to get out more if they really have never heard of companies like EM4 Miniatures who have been around years.

This is a fun one too:

A. There are some products that we've taken out of the case
because we didn't -- or that we didn't include in the lawsuit
because we have concentrated on the products that we thought our
copyright claims were stronger and where actually we were
instructed, I believe, to simplify the case. So, we took out
quite a few products we didn't think were -- or the case was as
strong on the copyright. So, yes, there are some products that
we're not accusing Chapterhouse of infringing on the copyright.
Of course, yes.
Q. So, for those products that you're accusing only of
trademark infringement, any allegations of copyright
infringement would be even less strong than the Mycetic Spore
copyright claim?
A. Well, I don't know. I'm not an expert in the strength in
that way because that's what we're here for, isn't it, to
determine that.
Q. But you kept Mycetic Spore in the case, although you admit
that it's a weak claim.
A. Yes.

A. Well, the stuff that's not -- the things that aren't part of
the lawsuit are not part of the lawsuit. We've bent over
backwards to try and resolve this not in court. We've tried
everything to not have to get to this place, and we've been
quite accommodating about streamlining the case.
Q. So, you brought --
A. There's a lot more than a hundred and however many products
we've been through today.
Q. So, you consider that bringing a claim against this Mycetic
Spore is being accommodating? A copyright infringement claim
based on that blurry picture that you showed, that's being
accommodating?
A. Because it's a very sensitive product to us because of what
it represents.

Need some aloe for that burn?

What a great read, keep them coming!

I'm loving these little snippets.

It just keeps on giving, doesn't it?

Makes you wonder how they won as many as they did.

I love the part where they say "we don't reference outside materials when creating our unique products" followed by "I don't know what they look at or don't look at, we assume they did as they were told"

Paraphrased of course.

In the interest of fairness, are there any snippets that bad from CHS's testimonies?

That all reads quite damning to GW's case.

 loki old fart wrote:
Makes you wonder how they won as many as they did.

And thus the appeal....

I wonder if anybody had to mop up the sweat from the courtroom floor after some of those statements....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
Makes you wonder how they won as many as they did.

And thus the appeal....

I wonder if anybody had to mop up the sweat from the courtroom floor after some of those statements....

The Auld Grump

You can practically read the tremor in Gill's voice. I love the "not really" knee jerk response to the suggestion that they go back through those emails.
Merrett and jones are true believers. They really believe that stuff. And Merrett has no idea why saying that something is a copy of an idea is bad.

There's good stuff for GW, but someone else can dig that up. There's plenty of out of context stuff that sounds bad, mostly stupid things in emails that look really bad, unless you bother to realize that it is often Chapterhouse trying to NOT copy something.

There's stuff like, 'how are we going to do that and still make money' and 'is it copying if we do that' (paraphrased). CHS crossed a few lines in my view, but this case was never about a few legit complaints. It was about angled barrel shrouds, space elves, and halbards. As Heartzell said, you think it is reasonable to claim the spore pod infringes one blurry corner of a drawing that looks like a blob? Copyright only goes so far. GWs beef was that someone had the temerity to make accessories for their products.

Loved the combination of GW admitting they basically nicked the tentacled genestealer head from Cthulhu, and then shortly afterwards claiming ownership of the very idea of a tentacly head.

I read through the quotes, and my first thought is "God, I feel sorry for the jury. If they're not wargamers, and maybe even if they are, they must be bored out of their fething minds listening to this crap".

I'll pull out more quotes tomorrow. Amusingly enough, there's awesome stuff in Merrett's direct testimony. Andy jones has some good stuff too. You can tell he's fighting with Bryce Cooper, chapterhouse's lawyer, until Bryce wears him down and the judge breaks jones in half. Rare to have a witness dressed down by a judge in open court.

If I had to pick my favorite so far, it is Nick Villacci pointing out that the claim chart shows that his website does in fact say "Cthulhu." Reading testimony is a lot more interesting when you sat through a bunch of trials, because you have a better sense of the flow, and the way questions usually get asked. That was a total bonehead thing for Moskin to have asked. If you read the way he questions you can really tell he is not a trial lawyer, and this might have been his first show.

Seriously, read the cross by Bryce cooper and any questioning by the F&L associate on the case, Jason Keener. Keener should have been lead counsel. He is a much better trial lawyer.

weeble1000 wrote:
There's stuff like, 'how are we going to do that and still make money' and 'is it copying if we do that' (paraphrased). CHS crossed a few lines in my view, but this case was never about a few legit complaints. It was about angled barrel shrouds, space elves, and halbards. As Heartzell said, you think it is reasonable to claim the spore pod infringes one blurry corner of a drawing that looks like a blob? Copyright only goes so far. GWs beef was that someone had the temerity to make accessories for their products.

Merret gave a pretty succinct summary of GW's position on the case IMO (already quoted above - but separated here for clarity):

A Well, without permission. I mean, Mr. Villacci might claim to be a fan of our products. He might claim to be an actual -- a hobbyist. He might claim to be someone who actually understands what it is to collect and play our games.

But if he had any notion, any inkling of what it means to be a fan, he'd know darn well that every single thing we put in every single one of our books, every single one of our codex, every unit, every character, every model, every vehicle is a model that we intend to make and sell.

So when you hear his counsel telling you, oh, there are gaps, he's doing our fans a favor, let me tell you, he's not doing our fans a favor. He's lining his own pockets at our expense. Where's his 31 years of development of our IP?

Where is it? He can't show you any creative of his own creations.

Of course, this is especially ironic in light of the tongue in cheek definition of the GW hobby (to buy GW products).

It is also something that people who have been long time "fans" of the regular type...not the brainwashed type, who have been waiting for 8 years for a jetbike farseer and warlocks for their Eldar armies might take issue with.

It ignores that the vast majority of CHS (and other companies 40K related products) are designed not as standalone figures and models - but to be used in conjunction with GW products, allowing GW to actually line their products at the expense of companies who make add-ons and options for the short fallings within GW's offerings.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


Of course, this is especially ironic in light of the tongue in cheek definition of the GW hobby (to buy GW products).

I don't think that was tongue in cheek...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This stuff is just painful to read.

Do we know what the general atmosphere was during proceedings? Did people laugh and snigger?

If I was in the Jury, I'd be stifling giggles.

Reading some of this makes my brain sad.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
For those who are interested - what Czakk is referring to are the actual in session transcripts of the trial (to include witness testimony from GW muckety mucks).

420 starts testimony with Merret and he talks through all of 421 and into 422:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.420.0.pdf

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.421.0.pdf

422 also has the Naismith Deposition and Andrew Jones testimony:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.422.0.pdf

423 continues Jones and has Gill Stevenson and Nick Villacci:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.423.0.pdf

424 continues Nick and has Robert Lippman as well as the Tomas Fiertek deposition:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.424.0.pdf

425 has the Wyatt Traina and John Blanche depositions, Jeffrey Nagy, Carl James Grindley testimony

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.425.0.pdf

426 has the William Brewster, Neil John Hodgson, Gill Stevenson, Jes Goodwin testimony:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.426.0.pdf

427 is sort of the end of the more interesting bits with the closing arguments:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.427.0.pdf

Are these full transcripts or just excerpts? Sorry to ask, but I'm on a limited download.

Cheers

Andrew

Gavel to gavel (don't recall specifics that were not there...though there might have been a few things that were off the record...). Each document is a days worth of testimony IIRC (read them several months ago - so memory is a bit foggy).

They are text PDFs though, so the files are not huge in terms of bandwidth (though they are each a couple hundred pages long).

Thank you, I'll start downloading for my bedtime reading.

Cheers

Andrew

weeble1000 wrote:
Jason Keener. Keener should have been lead counsel. He is a much better trial lawyer.

He appears to have made partner at F&L - so his hard work was rewarded.

Thanks weeble some of these stuff would make good stuff for Boston Legal or similar TV-shows.

I am sure GW think the cats is in the bag

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Jason Keener. Keener should have been lead counsel. He is a much better trial lawyer.

He appears to have made partner at F&L - so his hard work was rewarded.

Oh, well good for Keener.

Wow, that's pitiful on GW's part. I think we've read a lot of this stuff before, but it's fun to go back occasionally. I was curious(but not curious enough to look myself), but was the Malantai Female Farseer ever brought into the trial? I think it may have actually been released after the lawsuit was filed if I remember correctly, so I don't believe it was.

That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

Totally.

There are many clear influences from traditional Chinese and Japanese social and military history in various aspects of the Tau fluff and physical design.

It was in the designer's notes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Makes you wonder how they won as many as they did.

There are several reasons for that.

The case involved a huge number of accusations involving either copyright or trademarks, which are two separate and complex pieces of IP law that are liable to confuse a jury.

There was an element of throwing so much mud at the wall that some of it had stick, if only because the huge amount that did not stick, piled up anyway.

The judge was pretty slack which somewhat favoured GW, because many elements of their case were very slack as we have seen in the testimony excerpts and in other places, such as the correspondence between Moskin and the US Copyright office regarding the shoulder pad design.

You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett. The guy is clearly so far out of his depth here it is pitiful. The guy is a gamer who has been with Citadel and GW since the very early days. He knows gaming, he knows the GW fluff. But he knows diddly squat (or so it would appear from these extracts) about how the real world works. He has been living in the dark of the GW bunker for so long he's totally lost the plot. Which is a shame as for a long time I would have painted him as one of the good guys - you know the old "games by gamers" mentality that used to be there. Here though you seem to see he desperately trying to be all corporate and professional, and failing miserably. If as "Head of IP" he'd just stuck to being a gamer, and left off trying to bully other gamers with a methodology and a rationale he clearly doesn't understand, then things might have worked out a lot better for GW than they have done.

Krazy, if by slack you mean "sanctionable violation of the rules of evidence" then sure, GW's case was 'slack'.

If by slack you mean "admitted after three years of litigation and a week-long trial that they had, the entire time, brought no evidence" then sure, it was slack.

If by slack you mean "ruling that a drawing of a white skull on a black background appearing only once on page 88 of a book is a valid trademark in use in commerce" then yes, the court's rulings were 'slack'.

If by slack you mean "allowing a plaintiff to create deliberately confusing demonstratives by willfully infringing the defendant's copyrighted artwork" then it is fair to call Judge Kennelly's rulings 'slack'.

I get what you meant. I just think "slack" is a very generous word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Osbad wrote:
You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett.

Don't. He is a true believer. He did not think that he was out of his depth. He thought anyone who didn't agree with him, including his lawyers, was stupid. He thought that having to go to America to testify in a case that was so obviously in GW's favor was a massive inconvenience. He thought that Nick Villacci was a criminal punk.

I'll dig it up, but somewhere in that cross examination Merrett is really insulting to Chapterhouse's counsel, Julianne Hartzell.

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

The guy was lying in court then. Contradicted by his own company's magazine.

weeble1000 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Osbad wrote:
You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett.

Don't. He is a true believer. He did not think that he was out of his depth. He thought anyone who didn't agree with him, including his lawyers, was stupid. He thought that having to go to America to testify in a case that was so obviously in GW's favor was a massive inconvenience. He thought that Nick Villacci was a criminal punk.

I'll dig it up, but somewhere in that cross examination Merrett is really insulting to Chapterhouse's counsel, Julianne Hartzell.

Fair comment! I guess age gets us all in the end. I wonder what would have happened if back in the hippy-dippy times of the early 80's when everything was exciting, and Merrett was getting his gaming mojo on with the likes of Priestley and co., playing "Trolls in the Pantry", he'd have realised all this was in store for him in the future? Perhaps they'd have created a game about it and distributed it free as a hand-typed photocopy with every order over 2s/6d?(reference to UK's pre-decimal currency... humour explained for the younger, and colonial readers...) "Our latest game: "The Chapterhouse Protocol: Fight the machinations of the Evil Corporation as a Resin-casting Freedom Fighter. Stick it to Da Man in the Court Rooms of the 21st Century as the Alien Beast wriggles and writhes on the thrusting daggers of your Legal Counsel." It would have made an engaging little diversion back then! Would have made Paranoia look positively utopian!

How are the mighty fallen!

On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

This is the calibre of the guys deciding that the best way to get the company out of its financial hole is to release 7th edition 2.5 years early! What a bunch of numpties!

 Osbad wrote:
On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

Remember, attitude and not skills is the key to success at GW and to GW being successful (paraphrased from either the website or financial report).

One would think that the Corporate IP Manager would know a few things like:
1. The difference between words like "Copyright", "Trademark" and "Idea".
2. The foundational creative machinations behind one of the company's line of miniatures.

A reasonable person would expect someone in charge of the company's IP to know something about the IP....crazy world.

 Baragash wrote:

 Osbad wrote:
On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

Remember, attitude and not skills is the key to success at GW and to GW being successful (paraphrased from either the website or financial report).

I suspect that Merrett was a really difficult witness to prep. If you look at his depo testimony, he says he only spoke to his counsel for a couple of hours prior to the depo, or something like that. Further, he was deposed on three separate occasions and made the same stupid mistakes in each depo even though he would have had plenty of time in between to prep with his counsel. He made those same stupid mistakes at trial.

It is possible that Merrett simply thought that he knew what he was doing; that he did not need to be prepped. In such a case he would have been recklessly self-deluded. As is quite apparent, Merrett did not know what he was talking about. But that little narrative at the end of his direct testimony was clearly rehearsed. He practiced that, probably memorized it. Whether that was his idea or his counsel's idea is anyone's guess. But that is what he worked on; how to sound self-righteously indignant.

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth
spreads?
A. Well, obviously, the Internet is the big one today and
social media, but the Internet is probably the biggest single
way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate
with each other. And actually, you can't -- if you were to go
online and type Games Workshop, you would find a myriad of
forums and blogs and websites of our fans goobering about our
stuff, basically.

See...

Can you describe some of these forums, the names of
them?
A. Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka
Dakka, Bell of Lost Souls, Warseer, Heresy Online, Librarium
Online, Lustria Online, the Warhammer Forum. I mean, they're
endless. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of websites.

Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.

A. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the cover of the Dark Eldar Codex.
And you can see in the center of the picture is this very
macabre character, who's a kind of like a -- again, sort of kind
of a little bit like a wizard, but the Dark Eldar are spiky and
evil, and they have very black thoughts about the world.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you can see that's reflected in the shapes of the (Tau)
vehicles. They have a much more -- well, I can't explain --
sort of modern flavor to them and things that are redolent of
sort of a slightly more traditional science fictiony feel.
That's the best way I can put it, really.

But they don't reference anything other than the imaginations of the artists, right? What exactly makes them "redolent of more traditional science fiction? So there's science fiction that pre-dates GW, yes? That your artists drew on to create the Tau, yes? But they were instructed, by you, to not look at anything other than what GW had created, yes? And that's how you know they didn't take anything from stuff that is in the public domain, yes? That's your testimony Mr. Merrett? So, in other words, all you know is that you told them not to use anything else and that, presumably by sheer coincidence, the Tau wound up similar to traditional science fiction, a similarity that you yourself can identify, although you can't explain what makes the Tau unique other than that you told them to make something unique...

our kind of nerdy, geeky customers

our fans goobering about our stuff, basically.

And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.

With all this contempt for the customer, this really is TSR all over again.

Wow that venom for their customers. Geeky nerds goobering over their stuff and excited to buy GW products. Although to be fair I don't think that the "nerdy, geeky customers" part is meant to be insulting, I think it's used more like "tech-savvy".

Throne of the Emperor!

That part needs to be plastered everywhere just to illustrate to even the densest fanboy that GW doesn't care about what we want as long as the suckers keep forking over the cash.

 Absolutionis wrote:

our kind of nerdy, geeky customers

our fans goobering about our stuff, basically.

And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.

With all this contempt for the customer, this really is TSR all over again.

Yeeeshh, I was reading through that and all I could think was "really? THAT is how you represent your customers?" How GW got to this point of mocking the very people who buy their models still surprises me, even now.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wow that venom for their customers. Geeky nerds goobering over their stuff and excited to buy GW products. Although to be fair I don't think that the "nerdy, geeky customers" part is meant to be insulting, I think it's used more like "tech-savvy".

Throne of the Emperor!

That part needs to be plastered everywhere just to illustrate to even the densest fanboy that GW doesn't care about what we want as long as the suckers keep forking over the cash.

Yeah, I haven't seen many GW defenders perusing this thread. The evidence here is so significant that there isn't even an argument to be made *IN* GW's favor.

weeble1000 wrote:
[Moskin] Let's call up Plaintiff's Exhibit 1020, Page 38. In your testimony today, you said that you were inspired by something called a Cthulhu and a brain bug. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In making your Ymgarl model heads.
A. Yes.
Q. And can you show me anywhere on this page where you refer to your Ymgarl model heads as Cthulhu or brain bugs?A. Right there, sir.

Note that the answer said plaintiff attorney was looking for there was "No."

The secrets of asking questions during a debate:
1. Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

2. Never ask a question that has an answer that does not support your position.

Questions asked in a debate are not for the purpose of fact finding, they are to advance your position and/or impede the advancement of your opponent.

Moskin... should have looked more carefully before referencing the website....

He apparently thought that he knew the answer, and instead advanced his opponent's position.

Mind you, I have treasured memories of the debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter when they were each running for president.

Where each seemed to be asking questions because they wanted to know the answers - each giving ground to the other. And each came across as nice guys, despite the debate. (But then, I also do not think that Gerald Ford expected to have any real chance of winning the election - he was a sacrifice. (But also, I think, he was just a nice guy.))

The Auld Grump

And his questioning ended real quick after that. Way to end on a high note Moskin.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

The guy was lying in court then. Contradicted by his own company's magazine.

To be fair, it wasn't only inspired by Anime:



(Brataccas, by Psygnosis, 1986)

Given that they admit there's no demonstrable effect by CHS on GW sales, that they admit that GW hasn't changed pricing structure or anything resulting from CHS, how exactly did they claim and win damages?

essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

I suppose, seems like there was poor justification for the numbers GW cane out with.

I can't believe Merritt tried to claim the Tau were completely original. In the last year or so they've just released a huge Gundam robot for Tau for feths sakes. Apparently this was all creatively invented and designers didn't look at robot pictures or anything else, despite the obvious genre Tau was buying into.

9 Q So the designers of the Tau race did not draw inspiration
10 from the look -- for the look of the Tau from within Games
11 Workshop?

12 A That's correct. They looked for it inside their own
13 imaginations.

14 Q You also testified that you wanted to look very sci-fi,
15 correct?

And the Tau were created in 2011? Is that your testimony?

No. Tau were created in 2000 and released in 2001.

You testified that the Tau race presented a departure in
22 universe -- or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you've
23 already testified, correct?

Yes, probably.

And by sci-fi you were referring to science fiction?

As popularly understood, yes.

And specifically science fiction created by third parties?

No, I didn't say that.

It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau

A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something
25 from scratch, you know. That's our stock in trade. That's what we do for a living.

Q So you don't believe that any external robots were
3 considered by any designer of any Tau product?

Not to my knowledge, no.

But do you have knowledge what they referred to?

Well, they didn't refer to anything. What we did is we
project brainstormed concepts of -- for the Tau idea.

And none of them had ever seen a robot?

Well, that's preposterous to suggest, isn't it?

It is.

So the designers could have drawn inspiration from
existing robots?

A They could have done. They could have drawn inspiration from the clouds in the sky.

17 Q So you can't say which elements of the Tau race were
18 original?

19 A To the best of my knowledge, all the elements of the Tau
20 race -- of the Tau mortals were original.

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

 Triton wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

Oh my goodness, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I believe the word he was looking for was "octopus-like".

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Triton wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

Oh my goodness, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I believe the word he was looking for was "octopus-like".

Cephalopodean

It is insulting to the meanest intelligence to state that a group of creative designers for SF artwork in the 21st century should never have looked at anything at all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is insulting to the meanest intelligence to state that a group of creative designers for SF artwork in the 21st century should never have looked at anything at all.

Hopefully the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will feel the same way and rule that Merrett provide no evidence of protected expression.

weeble1000 wrote:
essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

Given that this is being appealed, did CHS already have to pay this, or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process?

It's odd that they would award the full amount while finding well under half the claims in GW's favor (and thus less than half of the supposedly infringing sales of CHS products?).

 RiTides wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

Given that this is being appealed, did CHS already have to pay this, or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process?

It's odd that they would award the full amount while finding well under half the claims in GW's favor (and thus less than half of the supposedly infringing sales of CHS products?).

Normally a defendant can get a bond. The normal percentage carries by venue, but it is usually something like 1-3%. Sometimes a defendant will have to put the full amount in escrow. Verdicts get flipped and/or remanded all the time.

In particularly bad awards it can be a problem, even if the appeal issues are rock solid. But a $25,000 judgement isn't a huge deal. Probably not hard to get a bond on that.

Isn't the reason it was awarded because before the trial GW where throwing around figures in the hundreds of thousands (effectively all the profit CH ever made) then suddenly changed their tune in the closing arguments and telling the jury they where trying to be reasonable?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Isn't the reason it was awarded because before the trial GW where throwing around figures in the hundreds of thousands (effectively all the profit CH ever made) then suddenly changed their tune in the closing arguments and telling the jury they where trying to be reasonable?

I am pretty sure that GW was also hoping to leverage that $25,000 into making Chapterhouse pay for GW's legal fees.... (Which did not happen.)

The Auld Grump

Oh right, because they got the 'full' amount the (eventually) asked for they tried to claim it as a sweeping victory for them, didn't they.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Oh right, because they got the 'full' amount the (eventually) asked for they tried to claim it as a sweeping victory for them, didn't they.

Yeah, pretty sure that was their line of thought.

So, GW is not getting their legal fees back from Chapterhouse, and are out of pocket by a million or so, at a rough guess.

And if the appeals run against GW... well... .

I... really think that the entirety of GW's legal strategy, even after Chapterhouse got pro bono representation, was to try to win by intimidation.

When that didn't work, they had nothing, and had not bothered to prepare.

I swear, they really did not think that they would ever have to appear in court... even after they were sworn in.

The Auld Grump

Some of these transcripts are hard going. I know there is a sound reason for jumping all around the place on cross examination to catch a dodgy answer, but it makes for a confusing read at times.

While I'm only about 500 pages in I'm surprised the jury hasn't asked for more comfort breaks, GW answers are boring and confusing to follow.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Some of these transcripts are hard going. I know there is a sound reason for jumping all around the place on cross examination to catch a dodgy answer, but it makes for a confusing read at times.

While I'm only about 500 pages in I'm surprised the jury hasn't asked for more comfort breaks, GW answers are boring and confusing to follow.

Cheers

Andrew

All trials are boring and confusing. Its the nature of the beast. Good lawyers can make it easier for the jury to retain information, but all trials are boring. As trials go, the Chapterhouse trial looks to have been particularly interesting. There were lots more 'TV-like' moments in the Chapterhouse trial than in most trials. What makes it incredibly tough is the 200+ claims, which really should not have been allowed to be tried together in a, what, 20 hours per side case?

Anyone interested in the wargame business, the history of GW, the nature of creativity, the nature of creative businesses, and the mess that modern IP law is in danger of becoming, can derive a lot of enjoyment from reading the transcripts.

The pre-trial depositions involving the concept of the "future soldier" were particularly interesting.

holy moly... some of the quotes are just... wow.. I have no words to describe how amazed I am.

weeble1000 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
Some of these transcripts are hard going. I know there is a sound reason for jumping all around the place on cross examination to catch a dodgy answer, but it makes for a confusing read at times.

While I'm only about 500 pages in I'm surprised the jury hasn't asked for more comfort breaks, GW answers are boring and confusing to follow.

Cheers

Andrew

All trials are boring and confusing. Its the nature of the beast. Good lawyers can make it easier for the jury to retain information, but all trials are boring. As trials go, the Chapterhouse trial looks to have been particularly interesting. There were lots more 'TV-like' moments in the Chapterhouse trial than in most trials. What makes it incredibly tough is the 200+ claims, which really should not have been allowed to be tried together in a, what, 20 hours per side case?

The 'TV' moments are what keeps me going here, the Merrett exam, with Keener asking about the underlying pad....talk about padding out the argument. Cross is much more interesting as Aly is keeping the answers from Merrett short and to the point where they can.

Reading between the lines, I can't believe that Merrett considers players with such condescension. I was going to say contempt, but I reconsidered that as unfair, he doesn't hate us, but certainly thinks we're beneath him.

In the interest of fairness, I'm fairly sure that I'll find the CHS witness exam just as tedious, with the cross more interesting there as well.

Cheers

Andrew

Merrett:

Q And you agree that not a single one of the three hammers
that Chapterhouse sells are a literal copy of any of the Games
Workshop products on the right-hand side?
A No. We feel that it contains elements copied from the
Games Workshop thing -- images shown on the right-hand side of
the claim chart.
Q But the overall shape of each of the hammers varies from
those shown in the Games Workshop side of the chart?
A To a lesser or greater extent, yes.
Q So you're really concerned that Chapterhouse has used the
idea of an impossibly sized hammer?
A It's a product called thunder hammer.
Q You may recall that yesterday we talked about --
THE COURT: I don't think he finished his answer.
MS. HARTZELL: Sorry.
THE WITNESS: Yes. This is a product that
Chapterhouse calls thunder hammer, and it shares the salient
characteristics of the Games Workshop thunder hammer. It's a
long-handled hammer with a very large business end, if you
like. The business end -- the hammer end of it is
fantastically enlarged. And it has -- carries --
The Games Workshop thunder hammers carry iconography,
and then the Chapterhouse ones are picking up some of those
same design cues like the aquilla on the left-hand hammer.
On the central and the right-hand hammer on the
Chapterhouse chart, side of the chart, it's picking up the
cues of the snarling lizard come dragon icon that we used for
our Salamanders.
That's what I think I testified yesterday. Was it
yesterday? Yesterday.

Still can't decide if it is a copyright or trademark claim.

I've only seen a handful of Chapterhouse products
kind of in the flesh, as it were.
Q So as the individual testifying on behalf of Games
Workshop about your copyright infringement claims, you have
only seen a handful of the physical products sold by
Chapterhouse?
A I've reviewed all the work that my team have done over the
last however many years on this five years, is it, that we
have been going.

A Yes. I said they're like giant turbines.
Q And these turbines are a rather standard shape for a
turbine, aren't they?
A Well, that's irrelevant. Their standard shape is being
combined to create something distinctive and unique in the
illustration.
Q But do you agree that the individual objects that you have
identified as turbines are a pretty standard shape for a
turbine?
A Well, it was irrelevant because you can take perfectly
normal, common or garden items and combine them in new
creative ways to create a new work, a new creative work.
Q Whether it is relevant or not, the question I'm asking you
is if the shape -- if the elements that you have identified as
turbines are a standard turbine shape?
A I don't know what a standard turbine shape would be. But
these are big round things attached to a backpack and depicted
on a fantastical future warrior.
So, yes. They're not -- there's no -- you could
describe them in lots of different ways, huge barrels, but I
said they were turbine-like. But turbines come in all
different shapes and sizes, don't they?

Q So which portion of those weapons is supposed to represent
obsidian?
A Well, you can't quite see it in the pictures, in all of
the pictures, but the big round thing on the top, the figure
on the left is wielding, and the two other figures have got
gold bands, obsidian heads on their axes.
We had other illustrations on our claim chart, on the
side-by-side comparisons, the illustrations of those weapons.
Q And those demonstrated that they were made of obsidian
stone?
A The illustrations of the weapons to represent them, yes.


Q And you have already testified that Games Workshop does
not claim to own a copyright on the idea of lizardmen,
correct?
A That is correct. Not on --
Well, we claim a copyright on our expression of the
Lizardman idea.
Q Correct. But you don't own the entire idea of Lizardmen?
A Nobody owns the entire idea of Lizardmen because that's --
the ideas are not ownable.
Q And that's because Lizardmen as an idea is wildly used in
science fiction and fantasy?
A No, it's not because of that. It's because it's the basic
rule of copyright, isn't it, that you can't own an idea but
you own the expression of the idea.
Q That's exactly right. You cannot own an idea in
copyright.


And yet Merrett repeatedly testified that Chapterhouse products infringed because they copied an idea. His words. So he has now testified that he knows ideas are not ownable. So in testifying that Chapterhouse copied a Games Workshop idea, was Mr. Merrett willfully making a malicious litigation claim? Clearly he knew at that time that ideas are not ownable, and yet he testified that the sole basis of several copyright infringement claims was an idea.

Q So when you talked about the unique flexible nature of the
cord connecting the backpack to the lasgun, that is not
something that Games Workshop has claimed as being infringed
here?
A Sorry. What claim is being infringed here is that
specific design of a sort of -- the lasgun -- I said lasgun
myself -- the lasgun being attached to a backpack with that
flexible pipe or those cabling or whatever they are supposed
to represent, a power conduit or something.
Q But that feature is not something that Games Workshop has
used in a miniature that is identified?
A It is, yes. We just haven't got them on this claim chart,
but that's an illustration of the 1995 iteration of the idea.
Q And you had the opportunity to indicate in this claim
chart every product that you contend that Chapterhouse
infringed?
A Yes, I know we did. Well, the ones there that we should
have gotten in there. But the illustration is dated 1995
which is I think when we introduced the idea to the Imperial
Guard.

Idea, idea, idea, idea.

A It says "the three ammos designed to fit on the heavy
bolter and the psybolter components."
So ipso facto, they must be that size if they have
been designed to fit there.
Q So the fact that they are designed to fit Games Workshop
products does not itself constitute infringement because
you're not asserting copyright infringement on this product,
right?
A I'm not sure those things follow. I don't know if they do
fit. They're designed to fit, but I don't know if they do fit
because I've not personally tried to fit them on the
components.
Q But it's correct that these are designed or are marketed
as designed --
A They're marketed that way, yes.
Q And you are not asserting copyright infringement on this
product?
A No. We're not claiming copyright infringement on this because
there is very little -- because we don't think there is any
copyright in them.
Q So even though they take into account in the design the
size and shape of the Games Workshop product, there is nothing
copyrightable about that?
A Yes, except I think it's irrelevant because -- I don't
think there is any aspect of them that would be pertinent to
the size of the Space Marine -- of the Games Workshop
products.

Q So for purposes of copyright infringement, it's irrelevant
if they are designed to fit the Games Workshop product?
A I didn't say that because that might be a -- that might
not be an appropriate use of our trademarks and all sorts of
other things.

Which expressly and directly contradicts Mr. Merrett's earlier testimony that sizing to fit on a games workshop product is an element of copyright infringement claimed by Games Workshop.

Q And you testified yesterday about the helmet of the Eldar.
Do you recall that?
A Yes.
Q And you said that the helmet was merely defining of the
Eldar? Do you remember that?
A Correct.
Q Do you recognize this?
A That's a very, very old copy of White Dwarf magazine.

Q Do you recognize this document?
A This is a very -- this is a very old White Dwarf magazine.
Yes, I do recognize it.
Q At sometime Games Workshop was licensed to sell products
by Michael Moorcock, is that correct?
A No. The products --
We had a license to produce some miniatures based on
Michael Moorcock's fiction.
Q And based on the universe created by Michael Moorcock in
his fiction?
A Well, on the works. On the works of Michael Moorcock,
yes.
MS. HARTZELL: I move to enter into evidence the
document identified by the witness as Defense Exhibit 421.
THE COURT: I'm going to admit it. It's admitted.
(Brief interruption.)
BY MS. HARTZELL:
Q The line of miniatures that were licensed from Michael
Moorcock's Fantasy were sold under the Eternal Champion name,
correct?
A These particular ones were, yes.
Q And because they were based on Michael Moorcock's fiction,
these products do not depict Eldar, correct?
A That's correct, they do not depict Eldar. Those depict
Melniboneans, I believe.
Q So their helmets are not Eldar helmets?
A These are Melnibonean miniatures.

Q And, in general, you would agree that there are Space
Marine chapters and color combinations including blue, white,
red, green, gray, black, purple, yellow and, I assume, others?
A Yes.
Q And you are asserting that no one else can paint their
figures using these color schemes?
A No, we're not asserting that.

Next time GW gives anyone crap about a paint scheme, there you go.

A I'm aware of one novel that used the title -- used "space
men" in the title.
Q And what novel was that?
A It was a novel called "Spots, the Space Marine," I think.
Q And that's the only time you have ever heard the word
"Space Marine" used in fiction outside of the Games Workshop
universe?
A Yes, I think so; to the best of my knowledge it is. I
can't recall another occasion where anybody has used that term
in a novel.

Q Games Workshop --
Although you testified that at the time that you
created Warhammer 40K, Games Workshop did not maintain a
library of reference materials; you currently have reference
materials at Games Workshop, correct?
A We have -- well, in the 25 years subsequent to that, yes,
we have accumulated all kinds of reference materials, yes.
Q And many of those are not published by Games Workshop?
A Many of those are not published by Games Workshop, that's
correct.
Q And those books include books about military history?
A Yes.
Q And about heraldry?
A Yes.
Q And about weapons?
A Yes.

Q Many designers at Games Workshop have access to those
books?
A Yes.

Q Going back to our discussion of the term Space Marine,
never seen it used in connection with the role playing game?
A I don't know if the thing I saw was a role playing game.
Q What is the thing you saw?
A A game book that was published in the late 70s possibly.
I don't know when -- exactly when it was published.
Q So you're aware of the use of Space Marines in connection
with some type of game in the 70s at least?
A Yes. I became aware of that quite recently.
Q You've been handed a book that's marked as Defense Exhibit
DX 615. Is that the book that you referenced?
A It doesn't have a mark on it.
Yes. I've never seen one in the flesh before.
Q But that's the book that you testified you were aware of
that used the name Space Marine?
A Yes, became aware -- I became aware of this, gosh, about
two months ago.

THE COURT: Okay. The objection is lack of
foundation. Can you describe to me how you think the
foundation has been laid at this point?
MS. HARTZELL: Based upon the fact that the witness
testified that this is the book that he was talking about.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the objection.
It's admitted. (LOL - terrible witness)

Q Mr. Merrett, this is the book that you mentioned that you
became aware of that was -- that used the name Space Marines?
A Yes.
Q And the title of that book is Space Marines Science
Fiction Miniature Rules Tactical Ground Combat; is that
correct?
A Yes.
Q Is this the book that you testified you became aware was
from the 70s?
A Yes.

Q You've not testified about any sales that you lost to
Chapterhouse, correct?
A I've not testified to that at all, no.
Q And Games Workshop hasn't changed the pricing of any of
its products as a result of Chapterhouse's business, correct?
A That would be correct.
You talked a little bit about concerns about your
licensees. You have not lost a single licensee as a result of
Chapterhouse's business, correct?
A We don't know whether we have or not. No licensee has
ever -- potential licensee has cited that as a reason for not
signing a license with us but --
Q And no current licensee has ever broken their license or
refused to renew their license based upon the existence of
Chapterhouse?
A That's not been the reason that any of them have cited for
breaking a relationship with us, no.
Q And you were asked yesterday about harm that Chapterhouse
might do to your business. You responded, "I can't give any
evidence of the harm they might do to, say, ourselves because
that would be impossible to track down." Do you recall that?
A I do.
Q So you haven't had documents over the course of the five
years that Chapterhouse has been in business showing any harm
to Games Workshop resulting from Chapterhouse's existence?
A Not my area, so I don't know. We may have had some, but,
I mean, other witnesses may testify to that.
Q So you as the head of intellectual property at Games
Workshop are not aware of any documents over the course of the
five years that Chapterhouse has been in business showing any
harm to Games Workshop resulting from Chapterhouse's
existence?
A Personally I'm not aware of that, no.
Q And the release of Chapterhouse's products has had no
business impact on Games Workshop?
A Again, some of the other witnesses may have some testimony
about that, but --
I'm sorry. I've lost the thread there a little bit
about what the question was.
Q You as the head of intellectual property for Games
Workshop are not testifying about any harm to Games Workshop
resulting from any business impact on Games Workshop from
Chapterhouse's products?
A I am not testifying to that, no.
Q In the same conversation where you discussed
Chapterhouse's business and your concern about your licensees,
you acknowledged that there are things in Games Workshop's
range that you can't claim to be completely original. Do you
remember that?
A Yes.
Q And you said it would be insane and stupid of you to even
claim that?
A Yes. I'm not sure -- was that the language I used? Gosh.
Q I believe it was.
A Okay.
Q And you understand that copyright protection does not
extend to elements of your design that are not original?
A No, I don't. That's not how -- my understanding of how
copyright works. Copyright can be vested in original
combinations of standard or otherwise noncopyrightable
elements. It's possible to create a new work by combining
previously noncopyrightable elements and creating a new work
Q So you testified earlier that you understand that
copyright does not extend to ideas, correct?
A I can't say what my -- my humble understanding of the law
on these matters is, is that actually copyright is invested in
original creative work.
Q And it only protects that portion of the work that is
original, which may include combinations?
A Yes.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Merrett Re-direct:

Q And opposing counsel also showed you what was marked as
Defendant's Exhibit 615, and can you tell me how this came --
when did you first see or hear of this?
A I can't remember exactly who said, somebody at Games
Workshop, and I can't remember who it was, said, oh,
apparently there's a set of game rules called Space Marines
that were published in the 70s.
Q And when did that happen? When did you learn of that?
A It was about two months ago. I can't remember exactly
when it was, but it was recently. And it was brought to our
attention primarily because of this lawsuit, that someone at
the company went, perhaps you should know about this.
Q And are you aware that any copies of this book or any
board game associated with it have ever been sold anywhere at
any time?
A I'm not aware of any -- of any of that, no. I don't know
anything at all about it other than it was published in the
70s, at some point in the 70s, and that's all I know. I don't
know if it was sold. I have no -- I just don't know.
Q And were you aware of Exhibit 615 in the mid 1980s when
Games Workshop created its Space Marines?
A No.
MR. MOSKIN: Your Honor, I would move to exclude
Exhibit 615 as being irrelevant.
THE COURT: I think it goes to weight. The motion is
overruled. You'll argue at the appropriate point what weight
should be given to the exhibit, if any. It's up to the jury
to decide that.

The Judge might have been a little more forceful if he had known that GW actually reviewed this particular game in an early issue of White Dwarf.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
THE COURT: The next question is related. I suspect
it will be the same answer. Are customers able to buy
individual parts for the vehicles, or do they have to buy the
whole part? Is it the same answer basically?
THE WITNESS: No. That's probably more likely that
we do a lot more add-on or component kit, conversion kits or
component kits for vehicles. So our Forge World division
produces a whole range of Rhino door kits and laminated door
kits and such like.

THE COURT: All right. Next question is about
playing the game. What happens in game play, according to the
codex, if a player introduces a unique modification of a
model, in other words, makes his or her own modifications to
it? How does that affect the game play under the codex?
THE WITNESS: It wouldn't affect it at all provided
they agreed with their opponent what that modification
represented.
THE COURT: All right. So you'd have to reach an
agreement?
THE WITNESS: Yeah. And typically someone would say,
oh, I've adapted this model in this way to represent this
option or this variant or this choice, and depending on the
players, they would reach an agreement about whether that was
acceptable.
Generally speaking, what we advise people to do is
not try to confuse their opponent when they're playing because
that would be kind of cheating, say. It's usually make it
really clear to your opponent what's going on.

Andy Jones

Q. And this list contains all of the terms Games Workshop
2 claims are its trademarks and Chapterhouse has infringed?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And by my count there are 92 terms and icons on that list.
5 Does that sound about right?
6 A. That sounds about right.

Q. And just to be clear, during your direct exam you didn't
8 present any evidence that shows that any customer has been
9 confused and thought that a Chapterhouse product that might have
10 used one of those terms was actually a Games Workshop product.
11 You didn't present any evidence like that.
12 A. You mean this afternoon?
13 Q. Yes.
14 A. No. No, I didn't.

Q. So, you're accusing Chapterhouse of infringing, by my count,
13 83 of your unregistered trademarks; is that right?
14 A. If that's what the count is, yes.
15 Q. Would that surprise you if it was 83?
16 A. Sorry?
17 Q. Would that surprise you that it was 83 terms and icons that
18 Games Workshop is accusing Chapterhouse of infringing?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Now, you understand you don't get a trademark on a word just
21 because you use it first, right?

A. Yes. Most of the ones on the list are marks that both
parties have agreed are our trademarks with Games Workshop
2 having prior use. So, it's not just us asserting that.

Not really - the Court ruled on this, over arguments by Chapterhouse to the contrary

Q. Okay. And so, there are a lot of terms here on this list.
16 So, I just want to make sure that I got a few things correct.
17 Okay? You didn't show today that Chapterhouse has used the term
18 Striking Scorpion in any of its products or advertisement. You
19 didn't show that, did you?
20 A. I'm trying to remember. We've been through so many things.
21 I don't think we did, actually. I don't think we talked
22 specifically about Striking Scorpion.
23 Q. And I just want to make sure again. You didn't show today
24 that Chapterhouse has ever used the term Eldar Farseer in any of
25 its products or on any of its advertising. You didn't show that
today, did you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Okay. And you didn't show today that Games Workshop has
4 ever used the term Eldar Jetbike on any of its products or any
5 of its descriptions.
6 A. I'm sorry. I'm just thinking about the Farseer thing. So,
7 are you saying that the complete thing or elements of?
8 Q. Can we go to the list here? And it's probably on Page 2,
9 and it looks like in number 14, one of Games Workshop's
10 trademarks that it's saying has been infringed in this case is
11 Eldar Farseer. That's the trademark, right?
12 A. So, what we're saying -- so, I see. I see what you're
13 saying. So, the fact that Chapterhouse used words like Heresy
14 for Horus Heresy or Farseer, when it's associated with something
15 that looks like our model and it's using elements of our
16 trademarks, then that's what we're contending is the issue here.
Q. Right. So, let me just make sure that you've answered my
18 question, which is the term Eldar Farseer is the trademark that
19 Games Workshop is alleging is infringed in this case, right?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And you didn't show any evidence today that Chapterhouse has
22 ever used the word Eldar Farseer in any of its products or any
23 of its descriptions.
A. Well, you've got the tab. So, the website, Chapterhouse's
25 website, if I recall correctly, has the tab Eldar, and in there
you've got a Farseer. So, Chapterhouse certainly do use Eldar
2 Farseer on products.
3 Q. Okay. So, let me just phrase it again for you to get an
4 answer to this question, which is you haven't shown anywhere
5 where Chapterhouse has used the phrase Eldar Farseer together on
6 a product or in any descriptions of its products. You haven't
7 shown that, have you?
8 A. No, I don't think we have, and I don't think that's the
9 point.

Q. And Eldar Warlock is another trademark that you allege is
11 infringed?
12 A. Yes, and it's the same thing again.
13 Q. So, you agree that you haven't shown --
14 A. No. What I'm saying is that Chapterhouse clearly used Eldar
15 and Warlock in combination with the copyright aspects to sell a
16 model that is an Eldar Warlock.

And that's your trademark infringement claim? It relies on your copyright infringement claim?

Q. And you haven't shown today that Chapterhouse has ever used
8 the phrase Horus Heresy in any of its products or any of its
9 product descriptions. You haven't shown that.
10 A. We've shown that they've used -- again, it's that kind of
11 unique association and combination of visual elements and
12 copyright elements, that unique combination, those associations.
13 And Chapterhouse talk about Heresy Era, Heresy this, Heresy
14 that. So, clearly, they are making products to free-ride, if
15 you will, on our Horus Heresy trademark.
Q. I understand. And Mr. Keener asked you many questions
17 earlier today. And so, I'm going to ask you to answer my
18 question, which is you have not shown that Chapterhouse has used
19 the phrase Horus Heresy in any of its products or any of its
20 product descriptions.
21 A. No, not that specific combination.
22 Q. Thank you.

WTF?

Q. And you said the terms are in the spreadsheet itself?
5 A. No, that was the product. If you remember the title, I
6 think it said product title. Where they're in those
7 spreadsheets, I was using the title of the product.
8 Q. Right. And you made a couple of spreadsheets over the
9 course of this litigation to show that point?
10 A. Yes. Well, I personally didn't make them. My operations
11 manager and the American team and finance team and what have you
12 pulled all that together.
13 Q. And I see that Blood Ravens is one of the trademarks here on
14 this page, right? Do you see that?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Can we take a look at PX125, please? And if we'd look at
17 Page 3. And feel free to look in your binder. We'll blow it up
18 though, too. This exhibit is one of those spreadsheets that you
19 referred to?

Q. This is one of those spreadsheets you were referring to?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And this spreadsheet was created during this litigation,
6 correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. It was created after you were deposed, actually, correct?
9 A. I've been deposed twice. So, it was created after the first
10 deposition, if my memory serves.
11 Q. And you created this spreadsheet to show the sales of Games
12 Workshop products that each of these alleged trademarks is in?
13 A. Yes.

Q. So, I guess what I'm saying is this spreadsheet doesn't show
25 if the mark is on the cover of a book, does it?
A. No. It says that -- what it does do is it tells you what
2 the product is, and then it gives you the proof of it. So, you
3 can go along to that column that says proof, and then you can
4 look in the Forge World catalog, for example, and you'll be
5 able -- if I was to go to assault, where we talked about Space
6 Marine Assault Squad, then what this is doing is saying here's a
7 product, for example, called the Deathwind Drop Pod with Assault
8 Cannons -- I think it's that one there -- and it says you'll
9 find that product in the Forge World catalog from 2004 on Page
10 14. So, that's telling you where you'll find and be able to
11 look at how we've used those trademarks.
12 Q. But you can't actually see the trademark on a product. You
13 didn't show that to the jury today.
14 A. No, no. No, we didn't today. We showed these spreadsheets.

Q. Are you saying that Blood Ravens would not be on the
18 product --
19 A. The Blood Ravens icon will be on a shoulder pad on a piece
20 of artwork, I would imagine, on one of the computer game box
21 sets, yeah, but --
22 Q. But I'm asking about the Blood Ravens term that you've
23 asserted. That's not going to be on the product?
24 A. No.
25 Q. That box that you've listed there?
A. And like I said, we've made that abundantly clear today.
2 Q. But my question is it's not going to be on the product
3 packaging that you've listed?
4 A. No

A. No. But I said very clearly that's the product name. We
12 have Wolf Guard Terminator Assault Cannon on it, on the front of
13 the product, and then that's its product code. So, that's --
14 yeah, that's its product code there. So, it's an actual product
15 called Wolf Guard Terminator Assault Cannon.
16 Q. But you didn't show that to the jury, right?
17 A. No. Well, I showed them the name. There it is.
18 Q. But the jury couldn't see how the term assault cannon was
19 used on that product packaging, correct?
A. Well, it was used in those words. It was printed on the
21 front of it, like it's shown there.
22 Q. You understand you don't get a trademark for any word you
23 use on the front of a product. You understand that.

Q. Okay. But you didn't show the jury the actual product so
10 that they could see how assault cannon looks on the product,
11 right?
12 A. No. No, I didn't. I showed them here's the title of the
13 product, here's its unique product code, and here's how much
14 money we made selling that specific product over the next series
15 of years.

Q. What you are saying, the jury wasn't able to evaluate that
17 because they didn't get to see the product, correct?
18 A. Well, they got to know the product title, and they got to
19 know the unique product number, and they got to know how much
20 money we've made selling that product over the last -- well,
21 since 2004, at least.

Q. Now, you also claim that jump pack is one of your
13 trademarks, right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And you did show a product with a jump pack, and that was
16 PX956, if we could pull that up.
Q. Do you remember looking at this product, PX956?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. And you said that those figures there are wearing jump
13 packs; is that right?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And this is the top cover of the box?
16 A. It is.
17 Q. Now, nowhere on the cover there does it say the word jump
18 pack, correct?
19 A. That's true.
Q. And this is the back of the box, correct? The underneath?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And here there is the word jump pack, correct?
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. And it's found right here, correct?
25 A. Yes, there.
Q. And that's in a sentence that says, "Assault squads are
2 equipped with close combat weapons, such as bolt pistols and
3 chainswords. Their jump packs enable them to strike hard and
4 fast, leaping over difficult terrain to quickly engage the
5 enemy." Do you see that?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you contend that jump pack is a trademark of Games
8 Workshop; is that right?
9 A. Yes.


Q. So, when customers see this book, they see the title
17 Tyranids, right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. They see Warhammer 40,000 on the top?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. You're not saying that customers are buying this book
22 because the word Mycetic Spore is used somewhere inside it.
23 You're not saying that, correct?
24 A. Well, how can I say why our customers are buying things.
25 They buy our products for a whole range of reasons. I'm sure
they pick them up and thumb through them and look at the titles
2 and the artwork and the characters, and all of that together is
3 what makes them decide to buy or not buy our product, including
4 a page about Mycetic Spores or Tervigons or any other of our
5 creatures.
6 Q. You haven't presented any consumer surveys that show why
7 your customers buy your products at all, correct?
8 A. No, we haven't.

Q. Games Workshop believes that the term jetbike is a valid
2 trademark it owns, and no other miniatures company can use that
3 term; is that correct?
4 A. In tabletop -- in terms of tabletop hobby war games?
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. That's our belief, yes.

Q. And Scibor is another miniatures company, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And this is another miniatures company referring to its
9 jetbike as a jetbike, right?
10 A. Yep.
11 Q. Has Games Workshop sent Scibor Miniatures a letter to cease
12 and desist using that term?
13 A. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to -- well, we're certainly in
14 communication with Scibor, yes.
15 Q. Have you sent them a letter to cease and desist from using
16 the term jetbike?
17 A. I'd be guessing. We're definitely in communication with
18 Scibor about a number of alleged trademark and copyright
19 infringement issues.
20 Q. Because Games Workshop believes Scibor has infringed
21 multiple of its trademarks?
22 A. Yes.

A. It is another one that looks remarkably similar to the
6 artwork that Chapterhouse we've alleged to have copied, and it's
7 another one that's new, January of 2012, and I'm pretty certain
8 that MaxMini are another company that we're in touch with.
9 Q. Have you sent them a cease and desist letter to stop using
10 the term jetbike?
11 A. I can't swear to that. I know that we're in contact with --
12 I'm pretty certain we are in contact with MaxMini on the
13 matter -- all these models you've just shown are all basically
14 derived from our -- the same piece of artwork that Chapterhouse
15 copied.A.
16 Q. And MaxMini has other products that you're in communication
17 with them about infringing?
18 A. I'm pretty certain so, yes

And again you'll see it's got the same features as our
2 jetbike painting. These are all copies of Games Workshop's
3 jetbike.
4 Q. You believe these are all copies of Games Workshop jetbikes?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Has Games Workshop sent Kromlech a letter to cease and
7 desist from using the term jetbike?
8 A. I know Kromlech are on our list. I'm not going to guess. I
9 don't -- I'm not managing the legal on a day-by-day basis. So,
10 I know Kromlech are one of the lists of our alleged infringers,
11 and what we generally do is we'll write to them, we'll engage in
12 conversation. We don't actually issue legal proceedings
13 lightly. So, Kromlech are likely to be one of those
14 companies -- they're certainly on the list. I know who Kromlech
15 are.

Q. Games Workshop hasn't conducted any studies to determine the
11 brand recognition for any of its alleged trademarks, right?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. And Games Workshop hasn't commissioned any market share
14 studies by any independent research service to evaluate its
15 trademarks in the U.S., correct?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. And Games Workshop has not engaged an independent expert in
18 this case to give his or her opinion about the trademarks at
19 issue, correct?
20 A. Correct.

Q. There are people at Games Workshop that are responsible for
19 looking on the Internet for potential trademark infringements,
20 right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. In fact, you have several hundred open case files at any one
23 time that are looking into exactly that issue, right?
24 A. Yes.
Q. And you send hundreds of communications to individuals or
companies per year that you think are infringing your
2 trademarks, right?
3 A. Yes.

More.. MORE!

This is just too funny

Keep it going, weeble!! Go man, go!

Seriously, I really appreciate these quotes being pulled out. These sorts of gaffs are something even an adamant defender of GW would have a hard time contesting.

 Accolade wrote:
Keep it going, weeble!! Go man, go!

Seriously, I really appreciate these quotes being pulled out. These sorts of gaffs are something even an adamant defender of GW would have a hard time contesting.

IDK have you been to BOLS recently? Any article not saying how great 7th edition is is met with cries of "stop trying to change the game, if you don't like it quit playing" and the like

That line about trademarking jetbikes and jump packs though... wowzers.

Oh I'm aware of that. I see that on Dakka too, but usually there's a good mix of opinions, which I wish I like this site so much

I still can't see how people can defend quotes like calling all GW customers geeky nerds (not as a compliment), or stating that our favorite part of the hobby is buying their models. I *do* however believe that they would just let that roll off their shoulder, saying "eh, he didn't really mean anything by that" or "hey, he was under a lot of pressure!"

What I'm getting from a lot of the testimony is that GW have never bothered with surveys of their customers at all. Their only feedback is from comments they supposedly get when people come to their events to pursue their favourite hobby, buying moar GW.

What events?

Gaems Day.

Which by definition is a self-selecting sample and therefore a completely inaccurate representation of the wargaming public.

Oh that's still going is it? Last I heard It was on life support.

Talking about how they come up with ideas, quoted from the Andy Chambers interview in news and rumors.

I’ll get back to Blizzard later, but what was the studio’s reaction back then when you first saw Starcraft 1 ?
We laughed and told ourselves that imitation was the sincerest form of flattery, we also knew that GW designs were all inspired from other places so it didn’t exactly seem like a big deal. Working on Starcraft later made me appreciate that it was as much different as it was the same. Some things, like the Protoss for example, were actually far more daring and original than the GW rendition of ‘space elves’ in the oh-so-standard ‘ancient and mystical race with high technology’ slot .

I have to say that the more of these transcripts I actually read, the less I understand how GW won on any of their claims.

Thus far, it seems like they never (or rarely) demonstrated ownership of their IP (whether trademark or copyright), never identified any product confusion, and never provided any evidence of damages.

How is it that they established a basis for the case being brought in the first place?

I honestly think the judge just didn't care about little plastic men

 jonolikespie wrote:
I honestly think the judge just didn't care about little plastic men

He wanted both parties out of his gorram courtroom.

The Auld Grump

Q Do you recognize this document?
A This is a very -- this is a very old White Dwarf magazine.
Yes, I do recognize it.
Q At sometime Games Workshop was licensed to sell products
by Michael Moorcock, is that correct?
A No. The products --
We had a license to produce some miniatures based on
Michael Moorcock's fiction.
Q And based on the universe created by Michael Moorcock in
his fiction?
A Well, on the works. On the works of Michael Moorcock,
yes.
MS. HARTZELL: I move to enter into evidence the
document identified by the witness as Defense Exhibit 421.
THE COURT: I'm going to admit it. It's admitted.
(Brief interruption.)
BY MS. HARTZELL:
Q The line of miniatures that were licensed from Michael
Moorcock's Fantasy were sold under the Eternal Champion name,
correct?
A These particular ones were, yes.
Q And because they were based on Michael Moorcock's fiction,
these products do not depict Eldar, correct?
A That's correct, they do not depict Eldar. Those depict
Melniboneans, I believe.
Q So their helmets are not Eldar helmets?
A These are Melnibonean miniatures.

Pure comedy gold.

How does Alan Merrett even have a job? Shouldn't he KNOW what is and what isn't GW's property.

Also, since most most of my knowledge of how courts work comes from LA law and having to stand before a judge myself. would it have been possible for some sort of practice run, with potential questions being brought up by GW's counsel to ensure a look of vague competence (even though gw were wrong on most counts) from GW staff?

It emerged during the course of the case that GW not only claimed copyrights on examples of artwork that they had no proof of title to, but they also retrospectively tried to acquire the copyrights of such artworks from some of their old artists -- who turned them down.

There is a ton of Sci Fi material out, so knowing and not knowing what has been used before could be tricky, but that said how could they with confidence say Space Marines was theirs? I only recently read some of the Stainless Steel Rat books and there is mention of Space Marines in them and the concept of Astropaths... so I'm sure some old GW staff must of read Stainless Steel Rat books before.

It also emerged during trial that no matter how many times Merritt and Jones were asked, they still have no clue about what the differences are between trademark and copyright, nor that you can't just claim trademarks and copyrights on anything you write, print, or sell.

For Merritt specifically with his title at GW, one would imagine he'd know wtf he's talking about.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It emerged during the course of the case that GW not only claimed copyrights on examples of artwork that they had no proof of title to, but they also retrospectively tried to acquire the copyrights of such artworks from some of their old artists -- who turned them down.

The so-called Gary Chalk incident. It gets worse though because GW claimed to not have contact info for any of these artists, only for CHS to find out through independent investigation that GW (as in Gill Stevenson and Alan Merrett) had been pestering them with requests for retroactive assignments of rights. GW escaped a sanction on that by conveniently dropping the claim.

They were being accommodating though. Bending over backwards to not have to go to court. That's also why they failed to produce correspondence with the copyright office, because that would have just made the case more confusing, you know? Because with the judge saying the pad was subject to copyright protection, it would have been really confusing to say that the copyright office disagreed. Although the judge made that decision not knowing about the denial, and then GW sent the copyright examiner the judge's opinion trying to overcome the rejection, all without telling anybody that GW was communicating with the copyright office, which was explicitly the subject of a standing discovery request.

 Aerethan wrote:
It also emerged during trial that no matter how many times Merritt and Jones were asked, they still have no clue about what the differences are between trademark and copyright, nor that you can't just claim trademarks and copyrights on anything you write, print, or sell.

For Merritt specifically with his title at GW, one would imagine he'd know wtf he's talking about.

Problem is, Merritt is a corpulent poor excuse of an executive. His only reason for being in his position is based purely on the old "It's not what you know, it's who you know". He's been there probably 20-30 years now and knows naff all on IP, trademarks, copyright etc as been extensively demonstrated. I welcome the day when the company is bought out just to watch such goobering yes-men get "let go"

weeble1000 wrote:
Although the judge made that decision not knowing about the denial, and then GW sent the copyright examiner the judge's opinion trying to overcome the rejection, all without telling anybody that GW was communicating with the copyright office, which was explicitly the subject of a standing discovery request.

Surely they got smacked for that? The idea that you can do something, found out to be wrong, and then just withdraw it without repercussions is stupid. It rings of someone taking hostages in a shopping mall and then going "Psyke! I'm totally letting them go. No desire to hold hostages now!" and getting away with it and the police going "Well, he's not holding any hostages now, so we can't do anything to him.".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Although the judge made that decision not knowing about the denial, and then GW sent the copyright examiner the judge's opinion trying to overcome the rejection, all without telling anybody that GW was communicating with the copyright office, which was explicitly the subject of a standing discovery request.

Surely they got smacked for that? The idea that you can do something, found out to be wrong, and then just withdraw it without repercussions is stupid. It rings of someone taking hostages in a shopping mall and then going "Psyke! I'm totally letting them go. No desire to hold hostages now!" and getting away with it and the police going "Well, he's not holding any hostages now, so we can't do anything to him.".

Jonathan Moskin was personally sanctioned for that and required to pay Chspterhouse's expenses to pull the files at the copyright office. A slap on the wrist honestly, and a sad, sorry excuse for maintaing ethical standards in the legal profession, but that's what it was. Now, Nick Vilacci hasn't posted anything about getting paid that sanction, so I don't know if Moskin has actually paid it yet. I can say that if it hasn't been paid, you can look and see just what the American Bar Association's position on that is...

Is there potential for that sanction to be reviewed and/or increased in the appeal?

 Alpharius wrote:
Is there potential for that sanction to be reviewed and/or increased in the appeal?

Not in the appeal, no. Not so far as I am aware. One would have to make a complaint to the state and national bar associations. Nobody is going to do that. See, lawyers tend to feel that they could wind up on the business end of those types of situations, so they tend not to press issues like that. I can dig up the ABA's recommendations for sanctions tomorrow (I am traveling today), and the list of aggravating factors is very interesting. Not the least of which is that I believe the ABA's position is that sanctions should be fulfilled in a timely manner.

Is the "That may Be Me One Day!" excuse the reason why the judge didn't hit him harder?

It seems like that was some seriously unethical behavior after all, and more than a single instance too!

That thing with the artists was a particularly dirty blow, in a case that has seemed full of crawling around in the mud and punching people (and by people, I mean Chapterhouse) in the balls.

The hilarious thing about all of this, and I remember thinking about this at the time when Rogue Trader was out, is that so much of GW's 40k universe borrows heavily from other franchises and sources of inspiration. The game was positively dripping with Dune, 2000AD, Moorcock-style references. Andy Chambers just mentioned this in a recent interview (see other thread), but TBH it is so obvious as to be a triviality as rain coming from the clouds. Yet, Merrett is claiming it isn't so, and would have us believe that GW's designers are deaf, dumb and mute, locked up in a cell away from the outside world.

I'm now waiting for him to say that Space Hulk wasn't based on Aliens - I'm amazed the jurors/legal people can even see each other in that court room with the amount of smoke coming out of that guy's trousers.

Not to mention the STEN series of books - there's even an 'eternal Emperor' in there - although he's a lot more active, and also...

Well, just go read those books - they're a little dated, but still awesome, and you can really see whole sections being lifted by GW as well!

The funny thing about reading all this is how clear it is that the guys running GW who decided to pursue "protecting their IP" as a strategy are clearly overestimating how original (and correspondingly how valuable) their 40k IP is, and they're getting burned in the courtroom for it. They thought they had all this great, original content because they aren't familiar with the world of SciFi, but the truth is their whole company's success is based on a series of borrowed ideas that they just happened to manage to produce on and market better 20 years ago, and their legal strategy is essentially invalid.

As far as I'm concerned: good. This is what should happen to a company, particularly one as niche and small as GW, is run as a cold, callous business with nothing but the bottom line considered. A company that appeals to this small of a consumer segment should be run with love and respect for its customers in order to be successful.

 Pacific wrote:
That thing with the artists was a particularly dirty blow, in a case that has seemed full of crawling around in the mud and punching people (and by people, I mean Chapterhouse) in the balls.

The hilarious thing about all of this, and I remember thinking about this at the time when Rogue Trader was out, is that so much of GW's 40k universe borrows heavily from other franchises and sources of inspiration. The game was positively dripping with Dune, 2000AD, Moorcock-style references. Andy Chambers just mentioned this in a recent interview (see other thread), but TBH it is so obvious as to be a triviality as rain coming from the clouds. Yet, Merrett is claiming it isn't so, and would have us believe that GW's designers are deaf, dumb and mute, locked up in a cell away from the outside world.

I'm now waiting for him to say that Space Hulk wasn't based on Aliens - I'm amazed the jurors/legal people can even see each other in that court room with the amount of smoke coming out of that guy's trousers.

Hahaha, all of this with the further fact that 40k is literally Fantasy in Space (they even dubbed it that in the beginning!), so most of the races are *again* derivatives of Tolkien and other references (D&D, etc.).

On the subject of what's original, just a little
summary of what you've heard. You heard Bob Naismith explain
how he created the original Space Marine character back in
1985. And he did this with no references in front of him. He
drew some inspiration very loosely from things like Napoleonic
blanket rolls and Roman helmets and American infantry
backpacks, but then these were all combined into something
very new and very different that doesn't look like any of
those things. And among the other things he did was to add
the enormously oversized shoulder pad design, which, as he
said, was done for no other reason than to give the figures
presence or charisma on the gaming table.

In the same way, Mr. Merrett explained to you in his
capacity for almost 30 years as head of IP at Games Workshop
that in those early years the company had no reference
materials whatsoever and that in the ensuing years he oversaw
the development of all these products and these books and the
story and the game to ensure that it remained original.

A said in Mr Moskin's closing statement. Do we believe this is an accurate description of the creativity of GW from early times? That they had no reference materials at all and simply pulled everything from a vacuum of creativity?

They've contradicted by their own magazine. All Chapterhouse needs to do is produce copies of early White Dwarf issues and point to all the game designer notes and interviews in which Andy Chambers, Rick Priestley etc discuss and acknowledge their sources of inspiration and influences.

Then accuse Merritt of lying in court.

Wouldn't that be lying under oath and therefore committing perjury?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Captain Edithae. Sneaky Raven Guards!

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wouldn't that be lying under oath and therefore committing perjury?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Captain Edithae. Sneaky Raven Guards!

We strike from the shadows.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wouldn't that be lying under oath and therefore committing perjury?

EDIT: Ninja'd by Captain Edithae. Sneaky Raven Guards!

We strike from the shadows.

But Merrett did not say or write those things... He would probably have been stupid enough to authenticate those documents, but you are also stuck in trial with what you got in discovery. For the most part. Perhaps if the community had helped out more with the defense of Chapterhouse Studios...

But for the most part people sat on their hands. To this day Chapterhouse Studios is something of a dirty word among miniatures companies. This case is going to decide a lot of important issues for this for this industry and beyond. And yet few did much of anything about it.

So every time you think about how could this have happened or how could GW have said this and gotten away with it, remember that the lawyers donating their time and money did not know what a space marine was when they took the case. Who'd they get help from?

Well for one, is that even legal? Members of the public chipping in, forwarding evidence and other unsolicited materials to a defendant in an on going court case?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well for one, is that even legal? Members of the public chipping in, forwarding evidence and other unsolicited materials to a defendant in an on going court case?

Why wouldn't it be?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Well for one, is that even legal? Members of the public chipping in, forwarding evidence and other unsolicited materials to a defendant in an on going court case?

Absolutely, 100%. There's nothing wrong with that, assuming that the information being provided doesn't violate some sort of law, such as privacy laws.

There's nothing stopping some, for example, of reading through back issues of white dwarf and providing useful references, such as those pointed out above.

The larger point is that the community and influential figures in the industry weren't leaping off their feet to get involved in the Chapterhouse case, or even to offer statements of support, or even about the case. It's understandable, as folks probably wanted to keep out of the line of fire, but fist, Andy Jones's testimony shows that other companies are certainly not off of GW's radar, and second, whether anyone likes it or not the case and the issues raised are a reality. Personally, I wouldn't want important issues like the ones at stake in this case decided without throwing my weight behind the side of the scales I'd prefer to see prevail.

It is no secret what participants in this market stand to gain out of this case, and more importantly, what they stand to lose. It's been that way for the past three years. The case is on appeal now, and there's nothing left to do but wait and see what happens, at least as far as the outcome of the case is concerned.

But look how fast GW got stomped in the Spots case when influential authors started to take an interest. Didn't hear anything from Andy Chambers about the Chapterhouse case did we? Gary Chalk was willing to swear an affidavit, and Bob Naismith was willing to testify and be honest. Other than that there were GW employees who would say anything and people with no connection to the industry, such as Bill Brewster and Dr. Carl Grindley.

Didn't hear a peep from Cavetore, Ronnie Renton had nothing to say about it. Got no word from MaxiMini, Scibor, HighTech, Victoria, etc. etc. Jon Paulson has been willing to talk about the case, but he was a named defendant.

It felt to me like there was a lot of "ain't my problem" and "ain't my business" going around, even though objectively this case will affect anyone in this market, and is everyone's business.