12thRonin wrote: Allows for something specific that they can claim the name on as opposed to something generic like Imperial Guard (used throughout history).
The trail allowed for all name to be used, even the 'nids. I didn't know that was used throught history.
Yonan wrote: Kirby accusing Chapterhouse of theft in his preamble was suggested to be grounds for libel. Would be interesting to see if CHS take that up and nail GW even further into the wall.
Not really. A jury did find that Chapterhouse unfairly appropriated certain Games Workshop copyrighted materials. It isn't much of an untruth to describe that as theft, at least insofar as defamation is concerned. No, Kirby is on firm ground there. But he also called the lawsuit an indecent expense for far too little gain, so good luck declaring that expense as an asset without incurring liability.
I'm surprised to see your stance on this.
Theft is a criminal activity as defined under most countries laws. IP infringement is a civil matter. The two have different legal definitions. Kirby as acting CEO should know the difference and be held accountable for his statement "if" he used the word in direct reference....Or have the definitions changed recently?
Now I would agree in that there really isn't a case for libel in that Kirby never directly mentioned Chapter House Studios.
Noir wrote: Question... The Lawsuit says it fair use to use GW terms for selling releted/add-on products (i.e. Eldar and such). What then is the point of the IG name change, as it is already legal for use too.
It is protectable by trademark. That's a fact, at least insofar as it is more so than "Imperial Guard." Was it worth the loss of continuity and goodwill? That's an important question.
As I understand it, Chapter House and anyone else are entitled to market "parts compatible with Games Workshop™'s Imperial Guard", and they are equally entitled to market "parts compatible with Games Workshop™'s Astra Militarum™".
If GW thought they were preventing this by changing the name, perhaps that is merely another evidence of their seeming incompetence and ignorance about IP law.
Games Workshop would actually have to apply to trademark that name to use the "™" which to date they have not done so in the UK or USA. Not that it probably matters protection wise but I do find it odd they haven't applied to protect that mark.
On the other hand my 15 year old son saw the new name and laughed probably due to his 1st year Latin knowledge and put the army book back. He hasn't touched his IG army since the AM release.
Games Workshop would actually have to apply to trademark that name to use the "™" which to date they have not done so in the UK or USA. Not that it probably matters protection wise but I do find it odd they haven't applied to protect that mark.
On the other hand my 15 year old son saw the new name and laughed probably due to his 1st year Latin knowledge and put the army book back. He hasn't touched his IG army since the AM release.
"™" exists by virtue of their use in trade. ® would indicate a registration.
I can slap a ™ on nearly everything - it really doesn't have much bearing on the strength of the mark or any aspect of its legal status (up until the point it is challenged and overturned...which then would cause issues if I continued to use it).
Anvildude wrote: Heh. I'd pay to see GW bring suit against Disney for copyright infringement.
Actually, I interpret it the opposite way. If its true that GW changed the name because Disney acquired Star Wars, then its because they were afraid that Disney would try to sue them.
The sense of schadenfreude I would experience should Disney sue GW for copyright infringement, would be positively euphoric.
What I don't quite understand is that GW has marked trademark onto 'landspeeder' for years and has never tried to rename that.
That, oddly enough is something that was properly trademarked by Lucas in all the correct contexts (Toys and Games) that should have caused GW to think 'no way.'
However, as that's lapsed now, due to well, decades and decades since the film came out... Has GW been able to get away with it?
Noir wrote: Question... The Lawsuit says it fair use to use GW terms for selling releted/add-on products (i.e. Eldar and such). What then is the point of the IG name change, as it is already legal for use too.
Imperial Guard offers no trademark protection at all because is so generic. At least AM is trademarkable and protectable.
Use in connection with add-on products is a separate issue unrelated how protectable the new trademark is.
You could but I don't think people did? I guess the lawsuit cleared up that you could do it so people might have started to do it, but more "reputable" companies like Vic for example would probably still have stuck to things like their "Arcadian" guard regardless imo.
There are Napoleonic Imperial Guard of course, but no 40K Imperial Guard except GW's.
As I understand the matter, trademarking Astra Militarum does not prevent people from making and advertising models "compatible with Astra Militarum™".
Kilkrazy wrote: There are Napoleonic Imperial Guard of course, but no 40K Imperial Guard except GW's.
As I understand the matter, trademarking Astra Militarum does not prevent people from making and advertising models "compatible with Astra Militarum™".
Sure, because that likely falls under fair use. But "Astra Militarum" is a fanciful, made up mark that nobody else in the market is using. Ergo it is by definition a stronger trademark. If GW were asking a consultant to help them identify ways to shore up the company's IP, an easy, short-sighted suggestion would have been to get rid of the generic marks.
Is GW looking to sue someone? Probably not. Is anyone else going to use "Astra Militarum?" Probably not. It is a pretty stupid phrase. So in terms of the practical value it provides GW, there really is not much. Objectively, the switch provides the value of a mark that is enforceable, should one be interested in enforcement, though Kirby makes it pretty clear in his preamble that GW aint looking to enforce its IP anytime soon.
GW burned the goodwill and, ironically, the recognition of the "Imperial Guard" mark to get a mark that is of less actual value, but greater potential value.
Now, if you want to be a dick, you could register the mark for other product categories than those GW is actually using it in and start putting out an "Astra Militarum" brand of t-shirts, gaming mats, coffee mugs, etc. You could effectively 'cyber-squat' the mark because GW was too stupid to register the mark, has only actually used the mark in commerce with a narrow band of product categories, and a federal judge has already ruled that none of GW's marks are famous, and thus not enforceable outside of their designated product categories. If "Warhammer" is not a famous mark, then "Astra Militarum" definitely is not. Then when GW goes to make an "Astra Militarum" tshirt, you could sue the company for infringing your unique, protectable trademark.
Noir wrote: Question... The Lawsuit says it fair use to use GW terms for selling related/add-on products (i.e. Eldar and such). What then is the point of the IG name change, as it is already legal for use too.
It is protectable by trademark. That's a fact, at least insofar as it is more so than "Imperial Guard." Was it worth the loss of continuity and goodwill? That's an important question.
And how many people are just going to go on calling it the Imperial Guard anyway?
I know that I am. I do not like Badus Latinus names (though Igpay Atinlay names might be fun).
The Auld Grump, I'll continue to call Stormtroopers Stormtroopers, too....
As I understand the matter, trademarking Astra Militarum does not prevent people from making and advertising models "compatible with Astra Militarum™".
Correct, but it does prevent people from selling figures advertised as "Astra Militarum" without the likelyhood of a lawsuit, which is not likely to be the case with figures advertised as "Imperial Guard".
weeble1000 wrote: Then when GW goes to make an "Astra Militarum" tshirt, you could sue the company for infringing your unique, protectable trademark.
Wouldn't you have to show that you've used that trademark prior to GWs use? That you came up with the name independently from GW's use?
You would only have to show that you produced "Astra Militarum" t-shirts before GW made "Astra Militarum" t-shirts.
Creating the word "Astra Militarum" and using it to sell a game and a model doesn't give GW trademark protections over any and all other conceivable uses of that name. Trademark only gives you protections in those product-markets within which you actually trade.
weeble1000 wrote: Then when GW goes to make an "Astra Militarum" tshirt, you could sue the company for infringing your unique, protectable trademark.
Wouldn't you have to show that you've used that trademark prior to GWs use? That you came up with the name independently from GW's use?
Sure. You don't get a mark without selling a product.
Also, that example was made by way of demonstrating how trademark law works. The point being that GW took the time to change the name, but not the effort to properly establish the mark.
If GW dropped everything and tried to walk away right now CH would still want to appeal and I believe that means either GW are forced to stay in or CH will be able to appeal uncontested and walk all over them.
I think. Might want a legal expert to explain that.
On top of that however there is the issue of WILL they give up. They seem to be in a terrible position and being called out by shareholders for wasting money but GW see their IP as their greatest asset and they see 'threats' like CH as directly attacking that IP.
The case is already in appeal. I feel sure that Games Workshop want to get away from it as quickly and cheaply as they can. It has been a huge disaster for them and will continue to bleed their legal budget uselessly if continued. The biggest problem for them being that rather than successfully defending their IP, they managed to lose previously uncontested defensive rights to huge swathes of it.
Presumably the two parties can come to a deal out of court. The law usually encourages arbitration and compromise if possible rather then spending court time.
However if Chapter House and their heavyweight pro bono IP law firm supporters think they can win, they have no reason to compromise, certainly not at the point that might suit Games Workshop. The Chapter House side might reasonably feel they can win back a big chunk of the 25% of GW claims on which they lost.
That would put GW in an even worse position than right now. The whole thing is a disaster of GW's own making, though, and they deserve neither sympathy nor mercy from anyone.
skyth wrote: I'm kind of surprised that we haven't heard anything recently about this. Wonder what's going on.
Yea, I'm surprised too. The briefing schedule has been suspended since early February, ostensibly for Rule 33 settlement discussions.
Kirby did admit to the lawsuit being an expensive mistake. Who knows what is going on?
Do you have any guesses? Could this mean settlement negotiations are making progress? Surely Chapterhouse would want to push this forward otherwise...?
If GW had offered Chapterhouse the wheelbarrow full of money that they have paid their lawyers - just to close up shop and walk away - the money would have been spent to greater effect. (One difference between GW and TSR - settling out of court and paying out sums to the folks that they were suing was their way of handling things.)
TheAuldGrump wrote: If GW had offered Chapterhouse the wheelbarrow full of money that they have paid their lawyers - just to close up shop and walk away - the money would have been spent to greater effect. (One difference between GW and TSR - settling out of court and paying out sums to the folks that they were suing was their way of handling things.)
The Auld Grump
Strap on a ridiculous NDA, pay enough to get a joint public statement, scare the crap out of the market. That would have been a way to spend the money effectively. But, GW was on a crusade. And crusaders are not rational. You can't rationalize with someone who is being irrational.
TheAuldGrump wrote: If GW had offered Chapterhouse the wheelbarrow full of money that they have paid their lawyers - just to close up shop and walk away - the money would have been spent to greater effect. (One difference between GW and TSR - settling out of court and paying out sums to the folks that they were suing was their way of handling things.)
The Auld Grump
Strap on a ridiculous NDA, pay enough to get a joint public statement, scare the crap out of the market. That would have been a way to spend the money effectively. But, GW was on a crusade. And crusaders are not rational. You can't rationalize with someone who is being irrational.
I can only imagine that GW's legal team is now frantically trying to get CHS to accept a settlement with just such a ridiculous NDA, whatever the other terms of the offer are. No attorney worth his or her bar membership could possibly be advocating taking this stinker of a case through another round of appeals or, God forbid, retrial (assuming the appellate bench remands it for such).
TheAuldGrump wrote: If GW had offered Chapterhouse the wheelbarrow full of money that they have paid their lawyers - just to close up shop and walk away - the money would have been spent to greater effect. (One difference between GW and TSR - settling out of court and paying out sums to the folks that they were suing was their way of handling things.)
The Auld Grump
But that wouldn't have had the desired effect... IP is GW's "Fortress Wall". Just paying someone to go away wouldn't've strengthened that Wall per se and, in fact, would have arguably weakened it.
More to the point, GW had absolutely no expectation that the Chapterhouse affair would have gone any different than any of the other times they threw their weight around with the possiblity of litigation. If CH didn't get pro bono help, CH more or less has to fold, GW'sability to use the threat of litigation as a Fortress Wall would have remained, and that would be that.
Instead, Kirby is left sputtering impotently about how he wasted a lot of shareholder money because the legal system just isn't up to snuff... Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
Until Chapter House, Games Workshop had successfully scared off any apparent incursions on their claimed IP. An NDA based pay-off would have been an admission that the wall was weak enough not to be a solid legal defence in court.
The "Fortress Wall" actually was always made of stage scenery but no-one realised it until Chapter House stood up for their rights (and everyone else's too, let's be clear...)
Nobody would know it was an NDA payoff. And, per se, paying someone off does amount to successful IP enforcement, which does strengthen one's marks.
For all we would know (in this hypothetical), Chapterhouse Studios would have gone out of business, Nick would have publicly admitted to infringing GW's IP, and GW would have ridden the wave and thrown a lawsuit someone else.
We could have speculated that it was a payoff, but those "white knights" you were mentioning would have drowned out any speculation by screeching "I told you so!" "GW won!" "Chapterhouse is a thief!" "Nick got what he deserved!"
Case in point: Games Workshop v Curse
Remember that? Probably not. But it happened less than a year before GW v CHS. If you look at the record in that case, to an experienced eye it is crystal clear how that lawsuit went down. Curse retained counsel, never answered the complaint, and filed for extensions for time to answer until both parties jointly motioned to dismiss the case 6 months later.
I actually called Curse to ask abut the lawsuit a few months after it went down and got a really nervous "I can't talk about it" right before a hangup without a goodbye. GW scared the crap out of Curse, bullied them into some kind of settlement, and got a firm, discourse murdering NDA attached to it.
Case in point: Paulson Games (sorry Jon, putting you on the spot again. No offense intended.)
GW sued Paulson Games, Jon was able to line up pro-bono representation after showing up to court in sneakers, and a few months later Paulson Games was out of the case, GW issued a generic shareholder statement about successfully defending its IP, and Jon (again, no offense intended) was gunshy about discussing the case and eventually switched gears to his (fething awesome!) Mecha Front line, which is about as far away from GW as you can go and still be making sci-fi miniatures.
All we could do at the time was pour over the Paulson Games website, examine the Way Back Machine, and guestimate what the settlement with GW might have impacted. And GW didn't even pay Paulson Games to close its doors entirely and publicly admit to infringement.
The point of all this is to stress that, whatever else Chapterhouse Studios or Nick Villacci is, the defendant stuck through years and years of contentious litigation and is, for the best of our knowledge, still sticking with it. As a result, we have had an unprecedented window into GW, we have, as a community, had a huge opportunity to give the discussion of intellectual property rights the serious and public treatment it deserves, and we saw the rapidly accelerating pace and severity of GW's IP enforcement stopped dead in its tracks.
Thank goodness GW was too stupid to pay off Chapterhouse and/or that Chapterhouse was/is principled enough to stay the course.
I think the Curse case was with different head counsel at GW and it would take an absolute moron at GW to think they would have looked anything but utter gack in pulling someone into a case who had no reason to be there (i.e. he had nothing to do with any of the alleged infringement).
GW lead counsel weren't smart but she wasn't dumb enough to think they could peg an infringement on Paulson for a model he never touched.
agnosto wrote: I think the Curse case was with different head counsel at GW and it would take an absolute moron at GW to think they would have looked anything but utter gack in pulling someone into a case who had no reason to be there (i.e. he had nothing to do with any of the alleged infringement).
GW lead counsel weren't smart but she wasn't dumb enough to think they could peg an infringement on Paulson for a model he never touched.
Sure she was.
Paulson got out because Judge Kennelly wanted him out. But even then Stevenson decided to fry him as much as possible before she let go of him. GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...just 'cause...immediately after Paulson Games was removed from the case.
Paulson Games was producing aftermarket parts for GW products, and GW's stance throughout the entirety of the litigation, up to and including as I type this post, is that any product sold for use with or in any way compatible with a GW product is somehow an infringement of...something...owned by GW.
If I recall correctly, GW even said in its investor statement about the settlement with Paulson Games that products were removed from sale.
GW literally, and I do mean literally accused a non-existent Chapterhouse Studios product of infringement for three goddamn years. Four out of the five elements GW accused the Chapterhouse Studios Tervigon Conversion Kit of copying were, again, literally parts from the GW Carnifex model kit.
'As you can clearly see Judge, those legs there look exactly like the legs from our Carnifex product!'
Nobody would know it was an NDA payoff. And, per se, paying someone off does amount to successful IP enforcement, which does strengthen one's marks.
[...and some other good points]
Those're all fair points. I was keying more on the "pay them to go away" part of things. I have no doubt that any GW bullying would include a stern NDA about anything that didn't spin the narrative GW's way. And I wasn't really thinking in terms of the strictly *legal* aspect of the marks. I was thinking in terms of the psychological aspects of GW trying to chase away any potential rivals. If word got out that GW was *paying* people to go away, that would (legal arguments aside) weaken their ability to bully other potential entrants. Or at least I'd have to think it would.
But in the end, it's moot. GW clearly didn't think the CH case was going to go down like it did. And I don't think *anyone* can argue that it's been anything other than a disaster (financially as Kirby admitted, legally with so much of the Fortress now in tatters, or in PR terms with all the ill will its generated).
Paulson got out because Judge Kennelly wanted him out. But even then Stevenson decided to fry him as much as possible before she let go of him. GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...just 'cause...immediately after Paulson Games was removed from the case.
Paulson Games was producing aftermarket parts for GW products, and GW's stance throughout the entirety of the litigation, up to and including as I type this post, is that any product sold for use with or in any way compatible with a GW product is somehow an infringement of...something...owned by GW.
If I recall correctly, GW even said in its investor statement about the settlement with Paulson Games that products were removed from sale.
GW literally, and I do mean literally accused a non-existent Chapterhouse Studios product of infringement for three goddamn years. Four out of the five elements GW accused the Chapterhouse Studios Tervigon Conversion Kit of copying were, again, literally parts from the GW Carnifex model kit.
'As you can clearly see Judge, those legs there look exactly like the legs from our Carnifex product!'
agnosto wrote: I think the Curse case was with different head counsel at GW and it would take an absolute moron at GW to think they would have looked anything but utter gack in pulling someone into a case who had no reason to be there (i.e. he had nothing to do with any of the alleged infringement).
GW lead counsel weren't smart but she wasn't dumb enough to think they could peg an infringement on Paulson for a model he never touched.
Sure she was.
Paulson got out because Judge Kennelly wanted him out. But even then Stevenson decided to fry him as much as possible before she let go of him. GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...just 'cause...immediately after Paulson Games was removed from the case.
Paulson Games was producing aftermarket parts for GW products, and GW's stance throughout the entirety of the litigation, up to and including as I type this post, is that any product sold for use with or in any way compatible with a GW product is somehow an infringement of...something...owned by GW.
If I recall correctly, GW even said in its investor statement about the settlement with Paulson Games that products were removed from sale.
GW literally, and I do mean literally accused a non-existent Chapterhouse Studios product of infringement for three goddamn years. Four out of the five elements GW accused the Chapterhouse Studios Tervigon Conversion Kit of copying were, again, literally parts from the GW Carnifex model kit.
'As you can clearly see Judge, those legs there look exactly like the legs from our Carnifex product!'
Yes, Gill Stevenson was stupid enough.
I feel like I need to go back and reread the first hundred pages of this, I don't remember any of that.
Nobody would know it was an NDA payoff. And, per se, paying someone off does amount to successful IP enforcement, which does strengthen one's marks.
For all we would know (in this hypothetical), Chapterhouse Studios would have gone out of business, Nick would have publicly admitted to infringing GW's IP, and GW would have ridden the wave and thrown a lawsuit someone else.
We could have speculated that it was a payoff, but those "white knights" you were mentioning would have drowned out any speculation by screeching "I told you so!" "GW won!" "Chapterhouse is a thief!" "Nick got what he deserved!"
Case in point: Games Workshop v Curse
Remember that? Probably not. But it happened less than a year before GW v CHS. If you look at the record in that case, to an experienced eye it is crystal clear how that lawsuit went down. Curse retained counsel, never answered the complaint, and filed for extensions for time to answer until both parties jointly motioned to dismiss the case 6 months later.
I actually called Curse to ask abut the lawsuit a few months after it went down and got a really nervous "I can't talk about it" right before a hangup without a goodbye. GW scared the crap out of Curse, bullied them into some kind of settlement, and got a firm, discourse murdering NDA attached to it.
Case in point: Paulson Games (sorry Jon, putting you on the spot again. No offense intended.)
GW sued Paulson Games, Jon was able to line up pro-bono representation after showing up to court in sneakers, and a few months later Paulson Games was out of the case, GW issued a generic shareholder statement about successfully defending its IP, and Jon (again, no offense intended) was gunshy about discussing the case and eventually switched gears to his (fething awesome!) Mecha Front line, which is about as far away from GW as you can go and still be making sci-fi miniatures.
All we could do at the time was pour over the Paulson Games website, examine the Way Back Machine, and guestimate what the settlement with GW might have impacted. And GW didn't even pay Paulson Games to close its doors entirely and publicly admit to infringement.
The point of all this is to stress that, whatever else Chapterhouse Studios or Nick Villacci is, the defendant stuck through years and years of contentious litigation and is, for the best of our knowledge, still sticking with it. As a result, we have had an unprecedented window into GW, we have, as a community, had a huge opportunity to give the discussion of intellectual property rights the serious and public treatment it deserves, and we saw the rapidly accelerating pace and severity of GW's IP enforcement stopped dead in its tracks.
Thank goodness GW was too stupid to pay off Chapterhouse and/or that Chapterhouse was/is principled enough to stay the course.
And, for that matter, thank goodness for the legal firms that jumped on board to help Chapterhouse in this matter.
Lawyers seldom get the praise they deserve when they go beyond the call of everyday practice in order to help shape the law.
This is one of those times when they deserve the praise.
TheAuldGrump wrote: And, for that matter, thank goodness for the legal firms that jumped on board to help Chapterhouse in this matter.
Lawyers seldom get the praise they deserve when they go beyond the call of everyday practice in order to help shape the law.
This is one of those times when they deserve the praise.
The Auld Grump
And what is particularly interesting about this case is that the pro-bono support was rather unprecedented.
Pro-bono representation in civil cases is rare in itself. Now, kudos to Lawyers for the Creative Arts in Chicago (and many thanks to Marci Rolnik), who work to provide legal assistance to creative artists of all stripes, which when contentious most often involves civil matters.
However, (civil case) pro-bono representation of a client that is not technically indigent is exceedingly rare. Chapterhouse Studios was and is a profit-making business. This technically means that it has money to hire its own lawyers...for about month...in years long litigation...that cost millions upon millions of dollars to litigate...against a world-wide corporation dominating its niche market with hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue per year.
Fun fact: Games Workshop spent more money making copies just for the trial itself than Chapterhouse's highest year over year revenue.
But despite the broader context of the case, Chapterhouse Studios is not an indigent defendant on its face. Considering this, the fact that Winston and Strawn, and later Marshall, Gerstein, and Borun, and later WilmerHale nevertheless chose to represent Chapterhouse Studios pro-bono is, as I said, unprecedented.
That representation alone makes the case very significant, even in the broad context of all civil litigation in the United States. Chapterhouse Studios got help because the complaint was intolerable on its face and because the disparity between the parties meant that a manifest injustice would otherwise have resulted. The pro-bono representation of Chapterhouse Studios is now something of a model that makes it easier for other defendants in similar circumstances to receive desperately needed pro-bono support.
weeble1000 wrote: GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...
And the best lash whips out there. I'm still pissed at not being able to buy more of them....
weeble1000 wrote: GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...
And the best lash whips out there. I'm still pissed at not being able to buy more of them....
T
As Jon has proven with both his bits business and now Mecha Front, he can make a bitchin' line of miniatures!
Imagine all the great projects that never even got started because someone was too afraid that they would stomped on, regardless of the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the allegations.
so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
I'd suggest you actually read the thread before coming in and making that kind of statement. They didn't cry that there was a lack of evidence. There flat out was a lack of evidence. GW didn't have the trademarks it claimed it did.
By all means GW can get more paranoid. What they cannot do, however, is continue to threaten legal action against small companies without actually having any knowledge of IP law, possession of any trademarks etc. as they will lose and lose hard.
Which is good for everyone as it means more small companies can make products which people want without fear of a lawsuit with no merits crippling them with legal costs.
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
Company loses lawsuit and hurts the customers as a result? And you support this company? with money?
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
Either you're trolling, or you somehow missed nearly 300 pages of quality discussion of the merits and implications, first of the lawsuit and then of the ruling & aftermath. In either case, drop it.
Paulson got out because Judge Kennelly wanted him out. But even then Stevenson decided to fry him as much as possible before she let go of him. GW made Paulson Games kiss the ring, and the company had to take down plenty of products as part of the settlement, unless Jon spontaneously decided to stop selling not-Tyranid bone swords...just 'cause...immediately after Paulson Games was removed from the case.
Paulson Games was producing aftermarket parts for GW products, and GW's stance throughout the entirety of the litigation, up to and including as I type this post, is that any product sold for use with or in any way compatible with a GW product is somehow an infringement of...something...owned by GW.
If I recall correctly, GW even said in its investor statement about the settlement with Paulson Games that products were removed from sale.
GW literally, and I do mean literally accused a non-existent Chapterhouse Studios product of infringement for three goddamn years. Four out of the five elements GW accused the Chapterhouse Studios Tervigon Conversion Kit of copying were, again, literally parts from the GW Carnifex model kit.
'As you can clearly see Judge, those legs there look exactly like the legs from our Carnifex product!'
Yes, Gill Stevenson was stupid enough.
I wouldn't call it kissing the ring, but meh. The original bonesword design were taken down but later on I released a new sculpt under the bio-sword name, and if I venture back into parts making I'm still free to sell those (the market on those has kind of dried up though). I've also resculpted and replaced various items in my range several times, as I updated the design or made a better 3d print, or changes to acomidate the casting. (my railguns for instance are on their 3rd incarnation) A few have also been dropped due to very low sales etc, where the yearly sales didn't even cover the cost of replacing molds. However the large majority of my products have remained in production, outside of the occasional break none of my mecha parts have been out of production before or since the case, and those formed the backbone of my parts business.
In the original complaint posted way back at the beginning of this GW's primary claim (and incorrect claim) against me in the filing was that I had sculpted the SAW walker which was sculpted by Zac Soden. I never had any part of it's construction, nor have I ever had any association with Chapterhouse. GW certainly didn't earn any points for that with the Judge who was very well aware that GW was trying to use legal costs to twist the thumb screws on two small businesses.
I do think that Nick had a much larger stake to defend and it took some conviction to do, in theory the case helps draw a better line in the sand. Although IMO it's a bit confusing given the randomness on claims that the jury awarded/denied. Once the appeal has been hashed out it'll help serve as a playbook by which other companies can operate from, and hopefully GW won't be as trigger happy to take people to court. A 5 minute phone call would have resolved my situation entirely, but why do something courteous when you have money to burn on lawyers?
I do think that the "age of fear" really needs to go away (which this case will help with). GW tries to control and restrain the hobby world to their products alone, the tighter they try and grip the faster they will lose it. New technology has helped open the doors for more people to get into the industry, that creates a lot of room for new talent and creativity which GW is sorely lacking nowdays. Their studio branch is suffering and they are losing ground to dozens of great new companies. Times are changing rapidly and if they want to remain at the top they need to get back to engaging their customers and the community, not suing it to piss and blacking out all information.
"Kissing the ring" was not a flattering way to put it, but what I meant what that under reasonable circumstances, a plaintiff in GW's position with respect to Paulson Games should have simply dropped Paulson Games as a named defendant with an apology to the Court for the 'mistake'. Normally what would have happened is that the Judge leans on the proper defendant's counsel to represent the improper indigent defendant with the understood, limited purpose of pushing the little bit of paper necessary to jointly motion the Court for a dismissal.
Rather than do that, GW forced Paulson Games to get representation and negotiate a settlement, even though GW's attachment of Paulson Games to the case was based on demonstrably incorrect facts alleging a non-existent business relationship between Paulson Games and Chapterhouse Studios.
In short, GW had no basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant in that lawsuit, and should properly have voluntarily dismissed Paulson Games as a named defendant and, if it so desired, filed a separate and unrelated complaint against Paulson Games. Instead, GW used its financial leverage to force Paulson Games into a settlement negotiation...in a lawsuit in which GW had no factual basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant.
Hence the 'kiss the ring' metaphor. Paulson Games should have been able to simply clear up the 'error' and walk away, but GW used its relative size and power to essentially coerce concessions from Paulson Games which were, properly speaking, entirely unrelated to the case. At least that's how I interpreted it, and please correct me if I am wrong.
I do think that the "age of fear" really needs to go away (which this case will help with). GW tries to control and restrain the hobby world to their products alone, the tighter they try and grip the faster they will lose it. New technology has helped open the doors for more people to get into the industry, that creates a lot of room for new talent and creativity which GW is sorely lacking nowdays. Their studio branch is suffering and they are losing ground to dozens of great new companies. Times are changing rapidly and if they want to remain at the top they need to get back to engaging their customers and the community, not suing it to piss and blacking out all information.
Nice! The more you tighten your grip, Kirby, the more systems will slip through your fingers.
In short, GW had no basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant in that lawsuit, and should properly have voluntarily dismissed Paulson Games as a named defendant and, if it so desired, filed a separate and unrelated complaint against Paulson Games. Instead, GW used its financial leverage to force Paulson Games into a settlement negotiation...in a lawsuit in which GW had no factual basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant.
Hence the 'kiss the ring' metaphor. Paulson Games should have been able to simply clear up the 'error' and walk away, but GW used its relative size and power to essentially coerce concessions from Paulson Games which were, properly speaking, entirely unrelated to the case. At least that's how I interpreted it, and please correct me if I am wrong.
He probably has to be careful how he describes his agreement with GW. It's pretty disgusting that GW were able to pull a wholly innocent party into the CHS case simply because they did not care to check their facts or listen to reason. A simple letter from Paulson Games and probably CHS correcting their mistaken claim that Paulson did the sculpt for them. I assume CHS has some paperwork showing they paid someone else for the original sculpt. I think GW were just enjoying swatting the flies, they weren't interested in reason or fairness.
Not being a legal person, I don't understand why someone so obviously wrongly identified has to make any settlement. He was wrongly identified. Even if it got all the way to court, the first question would be 'did you sculpt this?' And the answer would be 'no'. What does GW do then? They're just plain wrong and it's not going much further unless they can offer up proof connecting him to the sculpt, which they couldn't in truthfulness. It makes you wonder where GW really got the idea he had sculpted the big walker for CHS.
In short, GW had no basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant in that lawsuit, and should properly have voluntarily dismissed Paulson Games as a named defendant and, if it so desired, filed a separate and unrelated complaint against Paulson Games. Instead, GW used its financial leverage to force Paulson Games into a settlement negotiation...in a lawsuit in which GW had no factual basis to name Paulson Games as a defendant.
Hence the 'kiss the ring' metaphor. Paulson Games should have been able to simply clear up the 'error' and walk away, but GW used its relative size and power to essentially coerce concessions from Paulson Games which were, properly speaking, entirely unrelated to the case. At least that's how I interpreted it, and please correct me if I am wrong.
He probably has to be careful how he describes his agreement with GW. It's pretty disgusting that GW were able to pull a wholly innocent party into the CHS case simply because they did not care to check their facts or listen to reason. A simple letter from Paulson Games and probably CHS correcting their mistaken claim that Paulson did the sculpt for them. I assume CHS has some paperwork showing they paid someone else for the original sculpt. I think GW were just enjoying swatting the flies, they weren't interested in reason or fairness.
Not being a legal person, I don't understand why someone so obviously wrongly identified has to make any settlement. He was wrongly identified. Even if it got all the way to court, the first question would be 'did you sculpt this?' And the answer would be 'no'. What does GW do then? They're just plain wrong and it's not going much further unless they can offer up proof connecting him to the sculpt, which they couldn't in truthfulness. It makes you wonder where GW really got the idea he had sculpted the big walker for CHS.
Well, what does it take to get to Court? What does it take to get to discovery, and dispository motions, if not all the way to Court?
Money and time. It takes both considerable money and considerable time.
I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect one could make some sort of exception motion prior to answering the complaint, but the issue was one of fact, which you can't very easily adjudicate at the outset. And you have a guy (again no offense) who is not a lawyer, who has never been sued, who has probably never been to court, who doesn't have money for a lawyer, who is making some money from a side business while he goes to school (if I recall correctly), trying to figure out WTF to do. But he's operating a business which GW wants to destroy. He's one of what Kirby described in 2013 as "intransigent small infringers" who was never even given the chance to "cease and desist as soon as [he got] the letter," because he never got a letter in the first place.
That was the world we were living in in 2010. We have a small, niche industry full of lots of little cottage businesses; businesses to whom threats can go very far, especially when calling a bluff can take tens of thousands of dollars and months, if not years, of emotional strain...to protect what? Most miniatures businesses are not principle sources of income for the owners. GW was happy to exploit that.
But GW has now been taught that behaving this way can get you burned...badly. Now, sadly, it took a lot of folks from outside the industry to teach GW such a hard lesson that Kirby is now wishing it was all a bad dream. What we shouldn't take away from this case is a feeling that the bully has been stopped dead in its tracks and everything is okay now.
What we should take away, ultimately, is that everybody in this industry deserves to be treated with respect, and deserves the opportunity to conduct businesses fairly and squarely; to compete in the market on the strength of their ideas, their art, and on the quality of their products. This is something that it is the responsibility of everyone in this industry to ensure. GW can file another BS lawsuit tomorrow. Or some other company can do it. Or some entity outside the industry. But spurious litigation is never going to get very far if we collectively don't let it happen. Look at Spots the Space Marine and what happened when the industry started backing up Hogarth. Dead on arrival.
Wouldn't it have been nice if in 2010 Jon would have been able to go confidently to a community of peers in the market with GW's complaint and have a frank discussion about how to deal with it? There's still a huge untapped opportunity to use the results of the GW v CHS case to build a way for people operating in this industry to communicate about issues that have the potential to impact the industry as a whole. This industry is really very small and rather intimate, and yet it constantly surprises me how many barriers there are to communication and cooperation; and a significant portion of it comes from the environment of fear and uncertainty created by GW.
For so long it was almost impossible to talk about the GW v CHS case with anyone who was anything more than a consumer in this market. It is still something of a dirty word in polite conversation, which is insane. The arguments being made by the parties in the GW v CHS appeal have the potential to radically change the rules for how this industry does business. That's a fact. It should be what everyone is talking about; not what nobody wants to talk about.
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
That is how court cases work. The plaintiff or prosecution has to provide evidence to support their claim. If they can't, they lose.
That is what happened to 75% of the claims that GW did not drop for lack of evidence before they got to trial.
I am sorry if the operation of basic justice might deprive you of a notional series of bits and kits for a toy soldier game.
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
My faith in human nature is restored.
Just so you know... it isn't illegal to make conversion parts. Period. End. Stop.
That is how you get things like spinning rims for your cars and fancy scopes for your rifles.
It isn't against the law.
So, yes, there was a lack of evidence that doing something that is legal is against the law - in much the same way that there is a lack of evidence that water is dry at 38 degrees and one A of pressure.
Car companies have taken folks to court over that.
It's a bit late, but attached is something a good friend of mine found in the 1978 Games Workshop catalogue that might amuse you: yes, it's Bryan Ansell, founder of Citadel Miniatures, reviewing Fantac Games' "Space Marines" (distributed in the UK by Games Workshop).
Brennonjw wrote: so, they sell their stuff as GW conversion products, get sued, they cry lack of evidence? this gak is going to make GW more paranoid, only hurting us in the long run
My faith in human nature is restored.
Just so you know... it isn't illegal to make conversion parts. Period. End. Stop.
That is how you get things like spinning rims for your cars and fancy scopes for your rifles.
It isn't against the law.
So, yes, there was a lack of evidence that doing something that is legal is against the law - in much the same way that there is a lack of evidence that water is dry at 38 degrees and one A of pressure.
Car companies have taken folks to court over that.
And lost.
The Auld Grump
Heck, half of my AK-47 is aftermarket parts.
Yes, what chapter house did wasn't illegal. Chevrons and halberds existed before Games Workshop, as did Roman numerals on tanks. GW blundered into a case they didn't understand thinking they could throw their weight around and get what they wanted. When the other guy fought back, GW was taken off guard. Why do I suddenly have images of Blaster Master fighting Mel Gibson?
Chapterhouse put that Space Marine game book into evidence. Didn't get the White Dwarf article into evidence though. Maybe if more nerds had helped with the case...
Chapterhouse put that "Space Marine" game book [that was imported and sold by Games Workshop and positively reviewed by the founder of Citadel Miniatures] into evidence without mentioning the bit in square brackets, IIRC.
GW is very inward looking, it's no surprise that people joining the company in more recent years have little to no experience of anything beyond GW and drink the kool aid. That doesn't excuse people like Alan Merrit who have been there a long time, but it's easy to see why people coming later but into the idea that GW did everything themselves.
Spoiler:
'GW won their injunction against Bantam/Transworld's Dark Future books, which will now presumably be withdrawn. British justice and the English sense of fair play triumph again!' – writes Brian Stableford, possibly in tones of mild sarcasm.
As Ansible readers know (A64-65), this lawsuit arose because Games Workshop had a game called Dark Future™ and had published spin-off Dark Future books (mostly by Kim 'Jack Yeovil' Newman) before apparently discontinuing the game and their own book venture. Their new co-publishing project with Boxtree starts this month, with no DF books in the launch and none announced for later. (But on an Xmas card Ian Watson writes: 'The rest of Kim's and Brian's [Stableford's] books are due subsequently.') Meanwhile Transworld have been publishing a series of young-adult books with the overall title Dark Future, by Laurence James, which have incidentally sold a great deal better than the GW titles. GW objected and the lawsuit was on.
The law is pretty bloody murky. There is no copyright in titles; anyone can call their new space opera War and Peace. (Evelyn Waugh's title Men at Arms is being recycled by Terry Pratchett in a Discworld novel even now under construction.) Nevertheless Laurence James apparently searched Whitaker's Books in Print (plus the entire Essex Library database) to check that Dark Future wasn't currently in use. No mention: it seems GW had got bored with registering books and took to making up their own ISBN numbers instead. What about trademark infringement? British trademark law applies to a distinctive style or logo: anyone can write 'IBM' but use of the IBM logo is strictly controlled. The GW and Transworld Dark Future books didn't look at all alike. Transworld (said to have been very supportive of their author) had encouraging affidavits from the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association and major authors. 'Everyone in the book trade,' said my spy, 'realized the potential gravity of this case and absolutely everyone rallied around from all quarters.' It was expected throughout the publishing industry that GW's injunction would fail.
It succeeded, and early in December Transworld were duly landed with costs of £60,000 plus instructions to get their Dark Future books out of the shops in one week.
All this was an interlocutory hearing; an appeal is expected shortly, while the trial proper may be a year off. The charges against Transworld were trademark infringement and 'passing off'. The Deputy Judge declined to rule on the latter, so the law remains unclarified. The judgement on trademark infringement appeared to follow the line that (a) the GW Dark Future books all have clear ™ or ® marks on the cover near the words Dark Future (but they don't; only the GW logo on the back has a ™ mark – and of the three Yeovil DF books here, two refer on the copyright page only to the trademarked status of Warhammer, another game altogether); (b) if GW had brought out a magazine called Dark Future™, and if Transworld had published its own Dark Future magazine, that would have been an infringement owing to the technicalities of 'A' and 'B' trademarks, of which one applies to mags and the other doesn't (er, yes, but what have magazines got to do with it?); (c) for practical purposes there is no difference between a numbered series of books and a magazine or periodical (sickening sound of dropped jaws across the entire publishing industry); (d) there was an infringement: injunction granted.
It had earlier emerged that one cannot use as a trademark, on a book, 'any descriptive phrase'. Happily for GW but to the slight surprise of English grammarians, Dark Future was ruled not to be a descriptive phrase.
Ansible does not take sides, perish the thought, and lots of sf authors are grateful to GW for generous book advances. But the Transworld lot are bitter about such reputed facts as that GW went into court with a sympathy-winning attitude of 'poor little firm being crushed by big firm ... not our fault ... always wanted a compromise' after having initially stormed on Transworld with legal guns blazing and DEMANDED the withdrawal and destruction of all copies, no deals, no compromise; that GW gave sworn evidence that the Boxtree launch wasn't yet going ahead (i.e. was in peril from this wicked passing-off), only to be shown as fibbing thanks to contradictory evidence from the great and good Rog Peyton; above all, that if only GW had acted professionally and registered their bloody titles in the first place this whole nonsense would never have arisen.
Before the hearing a GW author had remarked, optimistically, that if GW/Boxtree were to win on a platform of claimed lost sales of Dark Future books, they might feel honour-bound to publish some of the DF epics left in limbo ever since the game was (allegedly) scrapped. We shall see....
They've been doing this for years. Most people think it started with the C&Ds sent out to websites some years ago. But GW has been doing this for decades. See in the spoiler above, they shut down an entirely unrelated book range for using the title 'dark future' even though they had discontinued the game and ceased publishing. They didn't publish any of the books that the other line was supposedly preventing either. They just barged in, no compromises and demanded they all be destroyed. Sound familiar? GW don't do compromise or communication and only accept destroying as much as they can of the other party. It's great that CHS have them a bloody nose, hopefully they will bleed and bleed from it for some time.
I was not aware of the Dark Future books case until I read your spoiler.
It is very interesting that GW showed the same pattern of behaviour in that case as in the Chapter House case:
Lack of basic business professionalism, in failing to register their books. Seemingly lying to the court about evidence, or at least "being economical avec le verité". Claims beyond what the law apparently should support.
I wonder what the final decision of appeal was. I could not find out though Googling did lead me to this very interesting paper on titles in European law, which I can recommend to anyone interested in the IP position regarding titles.
I am led to the conclusion that GW had got used to easy victories although using defective ammunition so had never bothered to clean up their act. Thus when they ran into a tough opponent -- Chapter House supported by heavy duty IP law firms -- they found their case was much, much weaker than they expected.
Well, under the listing for writer William James Laurence, the SFE site mentions that they were withdrawn, but not that they were ever re-released.
So I am guessing that either Bantam/Transworld dropped the appeal, or that it went against them. (I lean toward dropping the appeal - publishing has narrow margins of profitability - it likely was not worth pressing on with the series.)
Howard A Treesong wrote: GW is very inward looking, it's no surprise that people joining the company in more recent years have little to no experience of anything beyond GW and drink the kool aid. That doesn't excuse people like Alan Merrit who have been there a long time, but it's easy to see why people coming later but into the idea that GW did everything themselves.
Spoiler:
'GW won their injunction against Bantam/Transworld's Dark Future books, which will now presumably be withdrawn. British justice and the English sense of fair play triumph again!' – writes Brian Stableford, possibly in tones of mild sarcasm.
As Ansible readers know (A64-65), this lawsuit arose because Games Workshop had a game called Dark Future™ and had published spin-off Dark Future books (mostly by Kim 'Jack Yeovil' Newman) before apparently discontinuing the game and their own book venture. Their new co-publishing project with Boxtree starts this month, with no DF books in the launch and none announced for later. (But on an Xmas card Ian Watson writes: 'The rest of Kim's and Brian's [Stableford's] books are due subsequently.') Meanwhile Transworld have been publishing a series of young-adult books with the overall title Dark Future, by Laurence James, which have incidentally sold a great deal better than the GW titles. GW objected and the lawsuit was on.
The law is pretty bloody murky. There is no copyright in titles; anyone can call their new space opera War and Peace. (Evelyn Waugh's title Men at Arms is being recycled by Terry Pratchett in a Discworld novel even now under construction.) Nevertheless Laurence James apparently searched Whitaker's Books in Print (plus the entire Essex Library database) to check that Dark Future wasn't currently in use. No mention: it seems GW had got bored with registering books and took to making up their own ISBN numbers instead. What about trademark infringement? British trademark law applies to a distinctive style or logo: anyone can write 'IBM' but use of the IBM logo is strictly controlled. The GW and Transworld Dark Future books didn't look at all alike. Transworld (said to have been very supportive of their author) had encouraging affidavits from the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association and major authors. 'Everyone in the book trade,' said my spy, 'realized the potential gravity of this case and absolutely everyone rallied around from all quarters.' It was expected throughout the publishing industry that GW's injunction would fail.
It succeeded, and early in December Transworld were duly landed with costs of £60,000 plus instructions to get their Dark Future books out of the shops in one week.
All this was an interlocutory hearing; an appeal is expected shortly, while the trial proper may be a year off. The charges against Transworld were trademark infringement and 'passing off'. The Deputy Judge declined to rule on the latter, so the law remains unclarified. The judgement on trademark infringement appeared to follow the line that (a) the GW Dark Future books all have clear ™ or ® marks on the cover near the words Dark Future (but they don't; only the GW logo on the back has a ™ mark – and of the three Yeovil DF books here, two refer on the copyright page only to the trademarked status of Warhammer, another game altogether); (b) if GW had brought out a magazine called Dark Future™, and if Transworld had published its own Dark Future magazine, that would have been an infringement owing to the technicalities of 'A' and 'B' trademarks, of which one applies to mags and the other doesn't (er, yes, but what have magazines got to do with it?); (c) for practical purposes there is no difference between a numbered series of books and a magazine or periodical (sickening sound of dropped jaws across the entire publishing industry); (d) there was an infringement: injunction granted.
It had earlier emerged that one cannot use as a trademark, on a book, 'any descriptive phrase'. Happily for GW but to the slight surprise of English grammarians, Dark Future was ruled not to be a descriptive phrase.
Ansible does not take sides, perish the thought, and lots of sf authors are grateful to GW for generous book advances. But the Transworld lot are bitter about such reputed facts as that GW went into court with a sympathy-winning attitude of 'poor little firm being crushed by big firm ... not our fault ... always wanted a compromise' after having initially stormed on Transworld with legal guns blazing and DEMANDED the withdrawal and destruction of all copies, no deals, no compromise; that GW gave sworn evidence that the Boxtree launch wasn't yet going ahead (i.e. was in peril from this wicked passing-off), only to be shown as fibbing thanks to contradictory evidence from the great and good Rog Peyton; above all, that if only GW had acted professionally and registered their bloody titles in the first place this whole nonsense would never have arisen.
Before the hearing a GW author had remarked, optimistically, that if GW/Boxtree were to win on a platform of claimed lost sales of Dark Future books, they might feel honour-bound to publish some of the DF epics left in limbo ever since the game was (allegedly) scrapped. We shall see....
They've been doing this for years. Most people think it started with the C&Ds sent out to websites some years ago. But GW has been doing this for decades. See in the spoiler above, they shut down an entirely unrelated book range for using the title 'dark future' even though they had discontinued the game and ceased publishing. They didn't publish any of the books that the other line was supposedly preventing either. They just barged in, no compromises and demanded they all be destroyed. Sound familiar? GW don't do compromise or communication and only accept destroying as much as they can of the other party. It's great that CHS have them a bloody nose, hopefully they will bleed and bleed from it for some time.
Beyond that case (that I was not aware of previously), does anyone remember GW's legal maneuverings against RAFM Miniatures' "Reaction Marines" line back in the mid-to-late(?) 1990's? I know all the specific details, but RAFM produced a line of SF humans and orcs. Some in power armor, some in heavier suits. What my FLGS owner said (and this was largely pre-internet, so I didn't have any other sources of info) was that GW claimed that the heavier armor was "stolen" from the Tactical Dreadnought Armor concept. Never mind that there really were no stylistic similarities. I don't know if it ever went to court, but I recall that RAFM quickly backed down (or at least my FLGS couldn't get the models anymore). To be fair, I never heard GW's "side" of that story, but that was my own first experience with GW's attempts to force any competitors out of the market and soured me on GW for a number of years...
Beyond that case (that I was not aware of previously), does anyone remember GW's legal maneuverings against RAFM Miniatures' "Reaction Marines" line back in the mid-to-late(?) 1990's? I know all the specific details, but RAFM produced a line of SF humans and orcs. Some in power armor, some in heavier suits. What my FLGS owner said (and this was largely pre-internet, so I didn't have any other sources of info) was that GW claimed that the heavier armor was "stolen" from the Tactical Dreadnought Armor concept. Never mind that there really were no stylistic similarities. I don't know if it ever went to court, but I recall that RAFM quickly backed down (or at least my FLGS couldn't get the models anymore). To be fair, I never heard GW's "side" of that story, but that was my own first experience with GW's attempts to force any competitors out of the market and soured me on GW for a number of years...
Valete,
JohnS
RAFM still has the Reaction Marines, and you can still buy them.
But around that same time the distribution network for the tabletop gaming industry was changing - with most of the distributors either folding their tents or joining Alliance.
Alliance made a decision to carry only the top X percentage of lines - and the Reaction Marines were well below that number.
Now, through the wonder of the interweb, you can once again order Reaction Marines!
Another side effect of the changing distribution network was what is now known as 'The Osseum Debacle' - Osseum was a 'fulfillment' house - acting as middleman between the smaller game publishers and Alliance.
Then came the D20 crash - when WotC unveiled 3.5 and all the old 3e stuff was suddenly perceived as obsolete. (It wasn't - I still use some of it with Pathfinder... but that was the public perception) and Osseum suddenly didn't have the funds to pay those publishers what they already owed them..
Some of those publishers weren't that small - Green Ronin was one of the companies burned. Not long ago they did a Kickstarter for a Pathfinder edition of one of those books that they never got paid for. Going by their statement on the Kickstarter Green Ronin lost $3 for every $1 that they made[/url].
Howard A Treesong wrote: GW is very inward looking, it's no surprise that people joining the company in more recent years have little to no experience of anything beyond GW and drink the kool aid. That doesn't excuse people like Alan Merrit who have been there a long time, but it's easy to see why people coming later but into the idea that GW did everything themselves.
Spoiler:
'GW won their injunction against Bantam/Transworld's Dark Future books, which will now presumably be withdrawn. British justice and the English sense of fair play triumph again!' – writes Brian Stableford, possibly in tones of mild sarcasm.
As Ansible readers know (A64-65), this lawsuit arose because Games Workshop had a game called Dark Future™ and had published spin-off Dark Future books (mostly by Kim 'Jack Yeovil' Newman) before apparently discontinuing the game and their own book venture. Their new co-publishing project with Boxtree starts this month, with no DF books in the launch and none announced for later. (But on an Xmas card Ian Watson writes: 'The rest of Kim's and Brian's [Stableford's] books are due subsequently.') Meanwhile Transworld have been publishing a series of young-adult books with the overall title Dark Future, by Laurence James, which have incidentally sold a great deal better than the GW titles. GW objected and the lawsuit was on.
The law is pretty bloody murky. There is no copyright in titles; anyone can call their new space opera War and Peace. (Evelyn Waugh's title Men at Arms is being recycled by Terry Pratchett in a Discworld novel even now under construction.) Nevertheless Laurence James apparently searched Whitaker's Books in Print (plus the entire Essex Library database) to check that Dark Future wasn't currently in use. No mention: it seems GW had got bored with registering books and took to making up their own ISBN numbers instead. What about trademark infringement? British trademark law applies to a distinctive style or logo: anyone can write 'IBM' but use of the IBM logo is strictly controlled. The GW and Transworld Dark Future books didn't look at all alike. Transworld (said to have been very supportive of their author) had encouraging affidavits from the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association and major authors. 'Everyone in the book trade,' said my spy, 'realized the potential gravity of this case and absolutely everyone rallied around from all quarters.' It was expected throughout the publishing industry that GW's injunction would fail.
It succeeded, and early in December Transworld were duly landed with costs of £60,000 plus instructions to get their Dark Future books out of the shops in one week.
All this was an interlocutory hearing; an appeal is expected shortly, while the trial proper may be a year off. The charges against Transworld were trademark infringement and 'passing off'. The Deputy Judge declined to rule on the latter, so the law remains unclarified. The judgement on trademark infringement appeared to follow the line that (a) the GW Dark Future books all have clear ™ or ® marks on the cover near the words Dark Future (but they don't; only the GW logo on the back has a ™ mark – and of the three Yeovil DF books here, two refer on the copyright page only to the trademarked status of Warhammer, another game altogether); (b) if GW had brought out a magazine called Dark Future™, and if Transworld had published its own Dark Future magazine, that would have been an infringement owing to the technicalities of 'A' and 'B' trademarks, of which one applies to mags and the other doesn't (er, yes, but what have magazines got to do with it?); (c) for practical purposes there is no difference between a numbered series of books and a magazine or periodical (sickening sound of dropped jaws across the entire publishing industry); (d) there was an infringement: injunction granted.
It had earlier emerged that one cannot use as a trademark, on a book, 'any descriptive phrase'. Happily for GW but to the slight surprise of English grammarians, Dark Future was ruled not to be a descriptive phrase.
Ansible does not take sides, perish the thought, and lots of sf authors are grateful to GW for generous book advances. But the Transworld lot are bitter about such reputed facts as that GW went into court with a sympathy-winning attitude of 'poor little firm being crushed by big firm ... not our fault ... always wanted a compromise' after having initially stormed on Transworld with legal guns blazing and DEMANDED the withdrawal and destruction of all copies, no deals, no compromise; that GW gave sworn evidence that the Boxtree launch wasn't yet going ahead (i.e. was in peril from this wicked passing-off), only to be shown as fibbing thanks to contradictory evidence from the great and good Rog Peyton; above all, that if only GW had acted professionally and registered their bloody titles in the first place this whole nonsense would never have arisen.
Before the hearing a GW author had remarked, optimistically, that if GW/Boxtree were to win on a platform of claimed lost sales of Dark Future books, they might feel honour-bound to publish some of the DF epics left in limbo ever since the game was (allegedly) scrapped. We shall see....
They've been doing this for years. Most people think it started with the C&Ds sent out to websites some years ago. But GW has been doing this for decades. See in the spoiler above, they shut down an entirely unrelated book range for using the title 'dark future' even though they had discontinued the game and ceased publishing. They didn't publish any of the books that the other line was supposedly preventing either. They just barged in, no compromises and demanded they all be destroyed. Sound familiar? GW don't do compromise or communication and only accept destroying as much as they can of the other party. It's great that CHS have them a bloody nose, hopefully they will bleed and bleed from it for some time.
This seems absolutely nonsensical to me.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
Pure jealousy on the lines of "I thought of Space Marine" therefore no-one in the world is allowed to make a penny from any product associated with "Space Marine". Obviously complete bs from several angles but somehow GW got away with it until they kicked sand in Chapter House's face.
granander wrote: Weeble1000: You sound like a lawyer, what is your job?
EDIT: That sounded rude, I am curious since I have studied law here in Sweden.
I am not a lawyer. I am a trial consultant.
My specialty is contentious civil litigation, and most of my work is in intellectual property. I do not have a law degree, but a big part of my job is not having a law degree.
Trial consultants help attorneys prepare their cases for presentation at trial. We pick juries, design case strategy, write voir dire, opening statements, closing arguments, advise about demonstratives, prep witnesses, and generally provide comprehensive advice about how to be successful specifically at trial. A large part of that advice comes from conducting research, and a large part of it comes from experience.
Most trial lawyers don't try very many cases. A busy trial lawyer might try a case to verdict two or three times per year. Most cases settle out of court. I only deal with cases that are likely to go to trial, my small firm handles anywhere between 30-40 cases per year, and about half of them actually go to trial. So we see a lot of trials, and in conducting research we see a lot of juries deliberate, and examine the decision-making process of a variety of mock fact finders.
As the CHS case evidences, litigation takes a loooooooong time. There's a lot that goes into it, but when you get to trial the rules suddenly change. Trial is a whole different game. You now have to present your case in a limited time frame to a fact finder that is not as familiar with the case as you are, and in the case of a jury, full of people who know next to nothing about the law. And the stakes are incredibly high. There is a result that you want (a verdict in favor of your client) but how do you motivate someone to render that verdict? In this forum, the manner in which information is communicated is pretty damn essential, and that's where trial consultants come in.
As a caveat, a really good trial lawyer treats every case as if it is going to trial, and in reality, the very best trial preparation starts waaaay back in a case. If you know how you want to communicate during trial, it can inform the manner in which you direct discovery, for example. So although I am not as familiar with the procedures and methods of motion practice and discovery, I do have some experience with those aspects of litigation. Hence comments like, "I think you might be able to make some sort of exception motion." I think so, because I have seen it happen a few times, though sitting at my computer I can't exactly recall the ins and outs of what goes into an exception motion. Fortunately, there's proper lawyers who also post in this thread .
Most of my work is in patent litigation, some in trademarks, very little in copyright (because copyright cases rarely go to trial, but copyright law is a special hobby of mine), some product liability, toxic tort, employment, and assorted misc. cases. We also have a strong relationship with the ACLU's drug task force and have assisted on the civil side in several cases pro-bono. The only criminal work I have done has been pro-bono.
I would just like to thank people like weeble and others ... I can not remember names sadly, for helping to explain the legal parts of what is happening, to the vast majority that have very little understanding of the legal system. I am VERY interested in what has been going on as well as the future of this case. I just wanted you guys to know that even though we ( I must assume there are others like me ) are interested in the happenings, I would feel out of place to post anything other than questions.
I truly hope for the best for CH Studios in regards to the case and again ... thank you guys for the layman explanations.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
Howard A Treesong wrote: GW is very inward looking, it's no surprise that people joining the company in more recent years have little to no experience of anything beyond GW and drink the kool aid. That doesn't excuse people like Alan Merrit who have been there a long time, but it's easy to see why people coming later but into the idea that GW did everything themselves.
Spoiler:
'GW won their injunction against Bantam/Transworld's Dark Future books, which will now presumably be withdrawn. British justice and the English sense of fair play triumph again!' – writes Brian Stableford, possibly in tones of mild sarcasm.
As Ansible readers know (A64-65), this lawsuit arose because Games Workshop had a game called Dark Future™ and had published spin-off Dark Future books (mostly by Kim 'Jack Yeovil' Newman) before apparently discontinuing the game and their own book venture. Their new co-publishing project with Boxtree starts this month, with no DF books in the launch and none announced for later. (But on an Xmas card Ian Watson writes: 'The rest of Kim's and Brian's [Stableford's] books are due subsequently.') Meanwhile Transworld have been publishing a series of young-adult books with the overall title Dark Future, by Laurence James, which have incidentally sold a great deal better than the GW titles. GW objected and the lawsuit was on.
The law is pretty bloody murky. There is no copyright in titles; anyone can call their new space opera War and Peace. (Evelyn Waugh's title Men at Arms is being recycled by Terry Pratchett in a Discworld novel even now under construction.) Nevertheless Laurence James apparently searched Whitaker's Books in Print (plus the entire Essex Library database) to check that Dark Future wasn't currently in use. No mention: it seems GW had got bored with registering books and took to making up their own ISBN numbers instead. What about trademark infringement? British trademark law applies to a distinctive style or logo: anyone can write 'IBM' but use of the IBM logo is strictly controlled. The GW and Transworld Dark Future books didn't look at all alike. Transworld (said to have been very supportive of their author) had encouraging affidavits from the Society of Authors, the Publishers' Association and major authors. 'Everyone in the book trade,' said my spy, 'realized the potential gravity of this case and absolutely everyone rallied around from all quarters.' It was expected throughout the publishing industry that GW's injunction would fail.
It succeeded, and early in December Transworld were duly landed with costs of £60,000 plus instructions to get their Dark Future books out of the shops in one week.
All this was an interlocutory hearing; an appeal is expected shortly, while the trial proper may be a year off. The charges against Transworld were trademark infringement and 'passing off'. The Deputy Judge declined to rule on the latter, so the law remains unclarified. The judgement on trademark infringement appeared to follow the line that (a) the GW Dark Future books all have clear ™ or ® marks on the cover near the words Dark Future (but they don't; only the GW logo on the back has a ™ mark – and of the three Yeovil DF books here, two refer on the copyright page only to the trademarked status of Warhammer, another game altogether); (b) if GW had brought out a magazine called Dark Future™, and if Transworld had published its own Dark Future magazine, that would have been an infringement owing to the technicalities of 'A' and 'B' trademarks, of which one applies to mags and the other doesn't (er, yes, but what have magazines got to do with it?); (c) for practical purposes there is no difference between a numbered series of books and a magazine or periodical (sickening sound of dropped jaws across the entire publishing industry); (d) there was an infringement: injunction granted.
It had earlier emerged that one cannot use as a trademark, on a book, 'any descriptive phrase'. Happily for GW but to the slight surprise of English grammarians, Dark Future was ruled not to be a descriptive phrase.
Ansible does not take sides, perish the thought, and lots of sf authors are grateful to GW for generous book advances. But the Transworld lot are bitter about such reputed facts as that GW went into court with a sympathy-winning attitude of 'poor little firm being crushed by big firm ... not our fault ... always wanted a compromise' after having initially stormed on Transworld with legal guns blazing and DEMANDED the withdrawal and destruction of all copies, no deals, no compromise; that GW gave sworn evidence that the Boxtree launch wasn't yet going ahead (i.e. was in peril from this wicked passing-off), only to be shown as fibbing thanks to contradictory evidence from the great and good Rog Peyton; above all, that if only GW had acted professionally and registered their bloody titles in the first place this whole nonsense would never have arisen.
Before the hearing a GW author had remarked, optimistically, that if GW/Boxtree were to win on a platform of claimed lost sales of Dark Future books, they might feel honour-bound to publish some of the DF epics left in limbo ever since the game was (allegedly) scrapped. We shall see....
They've been doing this for years. Most people think it started with the C&Ds sent out to websites some years ago. But GW has been doing this for decades. See in the spoiler above, they shut down an entirely unrelated book range for using the title 'dark future' even though they had discontinued the game and ceased publishing. They didn't publish any of the books that the other line was supposedly preventing either. They just barged in, no compromises and demanded they all be destroyed. Sound familiar? GW don't do compromise or communication and only accept destroying as much as they can of the other party. It's great that CHS have them a bloody nose, hopefully they will bleed and bleed from it for some time.
This seems absolutely nonsensical to me.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
It was utterly nonsensical - though I do notice that there isn't a point of reference for that (at least for those who are not familiar with Ansible). This actually happened back in 1992-1993 time period. It was really the first official act that Kirby did after the management buyout - to file a lawsuit which was tenuous at best. It began a long history of lawsuits, legal actions and general fear mongering from GW...which brings us to this point.
In that particular case, Transworld/Bantam figured (reasonably so) that no Judge would ever grant GW's motions based on their tenuous claims. As a result they didn't end up putting up much a fight, relying instead on common sense and a reasonable interpretation of the law... Authors, other publishers and industry insiders felt the same. In the end though, GW did win their claims - largely because no one bothered to stand up.
With regards to the "why" - yes, trademarks do need to be protected. However, it is the responsibility of a mark holder to understand the law and what marks they "own" which are actually valid. Dark Future, Space Marine, Imperial Guard... All of those would not really be protectable marks on their own. They are not unique enough. The logos - with graphics, specific fonts and what not may (or may not) be. GW in no way has demonstrated (even now...after they have been told in the courts) an understanding of trademarks, copyright or any other IP related topic.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.
GW had a funny attitude towards their book range in those earlier times. Tom Kirby was against it, one author recalls him saying he didn't like fantasy and preferred to read Jane Austen. Once Bryan Ansell sold up the book range lost a lot of support and started to die off, which is why books went unpublished.
GW seem keen to publish now though. And one account may explain why. Boxtree took 300 ltd edition copies of the new Harlequin novel to an event and sold them all. GW shortly refused them shelf space in their own shops on the grounds they were too large or some such. It seems likely that GW simply doesn't like to share their toys, even with their publishing partner. Now they have their own publisher, they are more happy.
David Pringle wrote:I think it was largely to do with poor marketing, too-high pricing and insufficiently commercial covers. But behind it all, mainly, was the fact that GW just didn't know what they were doing when it came to marketing books.
David Pringle wrote:I think it was largely to do with poor marketing, too-high pricing and insufficiently commercial covers. But behind it all, mainly, was the fact that GW just didn't know what they were doing when it came to marketing books.
So, 24 years later, they've switched from knowing how to market miniatures but knowing feth all about books to knowing how to market books but knowing feth all about miniatures
Black Library is part of the grab-bag of non-core offerings that includes digital downloads, Forge World and licensing that in total amounts to only 11% of Games Workshop's annual turnover. It isn't the icing on the cake so much as the crystallised cherries on top of the icing.
I'd argue they don't know how to market books either. Since black library decided to move to their stupid policy of delaying mass market paperback releases for ages to try and maximise trade paperback sales, I know i have bought an awful lot less of their books. And I am pretty sure I'm not the only one as well.
You're absolutely not. I've maintained my purchases of the HH series, but have otherwise essentially dropped all BL purchases, the long wait between the last MMPB only release and the next one after the HB and TPB simply gave me time to discover/rediscover other, non-BL books and authors.
However, I would say that, for a period of time, GW did know how to market their books, or at least knew how to let others (Amazon / New York Times), market them, but then chose another path.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.
Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.
Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?
Someone correct me but I think the difference is this: If you make a, lets say, Bloodbowl fanpage you would have every right to use the trademark if you mention that it's a fan made page and not officially related to the company or product. Or if you were to make your own team of humanoid owls for it you could say that they are Bloodbowl compatible, although not officially supported.
But you would not be able to say that you are selling official Bloodbowl supplements or in any way representing the company.
I think they are supposed to be used so consumer can be confident in their purchases (and their quality/origin) but often get abused by companies who think it gives them a monopoly on a word, for example to silence criticism.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.
Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?
Just because the Olympic Committee chooses to behave that way, and chooses to justify its behavior in that manner, doesn't mean that it is the only way to manage a trademark or that the Olympic Committee is obligated to behave that way.
One merely has to assert a right that is recognized. That's it. But the assertion should be confined to a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the alleged mark. A mark owner can even pay the expenses an alleged infringer incurrs from altering their use. In fact, that is a very productive way to handle suspected trademark infringement, especially when there is a significant disparity between the relative size and sophistication of the parties. A mark owner can also accept a token license fee and allow the use to continue. Both of those options are often cheaper, and more effective means of shoring up a trademark.
For example, asserting an unregistered mark on the phrase "grenade launcher" is a little disingenuous. No one should ever believe that they have a right to the word mark "grenade launcher" in the context of a weapon that launches a grenade.
Leveraging the inability of a suspected infringer to defend against an allegation in an attempt to artificaially expand the scope of a mark is bullying.
It simply does not follow that because the owner of a mark must take on the burden of policing use of a mark that all assertions of a mark are reasonable on their face or handled reasonably.
Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?
The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.
Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.
That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.
Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?
Just because the Olympic Committee chooses to behave that way, and chooses to justify its behavior in that manner, doesn't mean that it is the only way to manage a trademark or that the Olympic Committee is obligated to behave that way.
One merely has to assert a right that is recognized. That's it. But the assertion should be confined to a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the alleged mark. A mark owner can even pay the expenses an alleged infringer incurrs from altering their use. In fact, that is a very productive way to handle suspected trademark infringement, especially when there is a significant disparity between the relative size and sophistication of the parties. A mark owner can also accept a token license fee and allow the use to continue. Both of those options are often cheaper, and more effective means of shoring up a trademark.
For example, asserting an unregistered mark on the phrase "grenade launcher" is a little disingenuous. No one should ever believe that they have a right to the word mark "grenade launcher" in the context of a weapon that launches a grenade.
Leveraging the inability of a suspected infringer to defend against an allegation in an attempt to artificaially expand the scope of a mark is bullying.
It simply does not follow that because the owner of a mark must take on the burden of policing use of a mark that all assertions of a mark are reasonable on their face or handled reasonably.
That's the important takeaway.
Another way is to license the use of IP.
The Open Game License and d20 System Trademark License worked together to allow third party publishers to add value to WotC's D&D, without putting the D&D trademark at risk.
Publishers gained the use of WotC's IP, at the cost of needing to open their rules content to other OGL publishers - the result was a smorgasbord! Publishers borrowing from other publishers, and acknowledging where they had gotten the borrowed rules.
I loved the output of 3PP under the d20 license - it allowed amateurs back into the field.
With 4e WotC tried to impose the Game System License - which took rights away from the publisher, imposed more restrictions, yet offered very little in return
The GSL failed, and 4e failed. The OGL supported Pathfinder took D&D's place at the front of the pack.
Putting a robust license in place helped make 3.X the most successful game of its generation.
Having a flawed and one sided license helped kill 4e, and cost WotC its position as the publisher of the world's most popular RPG.
Personally I would love to see some third party creations, I think it would enlarge Game Works if they actually welcomed third party designers. How many of us mix other model kits and upgrades with our WH40K kits. I know there are the died hard kit builders that would scuff at the notion of seeing Game Works work with the third party creators, but how many Bit designers are there out there that run pretty damn close with War Hammer stuff and how many kit designers actually make there bits compatible with War Hammer? But all in all I think WH40K Needs to lay down the sword and welcome some fresh new ideas to there family.
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
TheAuldGrump wrote: Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
TheAuldGrump wrote: Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
The Auld Grump
sounds like their legal team
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
TheAuldGrump wrote: Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
The Auld Grump
sounds like their legal team
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?
LOL! I think that would just about cover it. Worst possible client evvvvar... Pretty obvious the GW told their lawyers how to run the case and completely ignored their lawyers' advice.
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?
LOL! I think that would just about cover it. Worst possible client evvvvar... Pretty obvious the GW told their lawyers how to run the case and completely ignored their lawyers' advice.
Except that the firm has a history ot taking up clients in similar cases - right down to sanctions for failure to disclose.
GW and their lawyers really deserved each other. (So did Chapterhouse and their lawyers - who went beyond the call of regular business to aid Chapterhouse pro bono.)
Chapterhouse Kickstarter Update wrote:As soon as these arrive I will ship them out. I know my post have been lacking, this is due to a number of things most of you have no interest in, one of them being legal which is relevant.
A tiny insight into what may be going on behind the scenes..
TheAuldGrump wrote: Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
The Auld Grump
sounds like their legal team
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
To be fair to GW's US law firm, GW's case was weak at the beginning and got weaker as things went on.
It transpired, for example, that GW did not have any proof of owning copyright on a lot of the artwork they claimed as their copyright. GW had just assumed that "All of your base are belong to them", a trait they display frequently in these situations involving intellectual property.
The US law people played a weak hand as well as they could. (I won't speak about the monkey business about the shoulder pad design with the Copyright Office.)
TheAuldGrump wrote: Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.
Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?
The Auld Grump
sounds like their legal team
Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?
you don't really have to. Analogy: How do you sink an iraqi warship? By putting it on water. How do you sink GW's legal case? By taking it to court. GW had absolutely nothing to fly on but the methane collected from a cow via grocery bag. The real trick is how you explain to your clients that the person representing you is a hair's breadth away from being disbarred and investigated for criminal/negligent conduct in court/legal proceedings? That's the real trick right there.
@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.
I'm surprised GW still hasn't made an attempt to settle this thing out of court and make CHS go away. It won't save GW any money, but it would certainly save reputation.
poda_t wrote: I'm surprised GW still hasn't made an attempt to settle this thing out of court and make CHS go away. It won't save GW any money, but it would certainly save reputation.
I'm sure they're trying now, but CH isn't willing to budge on a few things that GW wants (or vice versa).
@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
That works all well and good for, say, Pepsi taking "Popsi" to court (fakety fake fake, by the way), but doesn't really fly in this case, considering that any 3rd party 'knockoff' manufacturer that spends $100 putting up fliers has put more money into advertising than GW has in the last decade, and probably done more to raise awareness of the 'hobby' and GW itself, to boot!
Any and all 'front end work' really only would include the design of the models and creation of the story to go along with them, which, as we've also seen, hasn't really been done by GW either, but rather by the hundreds of Science Fiction authors and artists that came before them, which they ripped off.
@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.
I was not commenting on CHS and details of the lawsuit, just how I thought trademarks are supposed to work. But I think I remember someone saying that CHS named something that was too GW-ish like female Eldar Farseer or Eldar Farseer on Jetbike (or something, I don't know about the details) and if it was not labeled sufficiently for GW it might have beed a reason for them to sue (no matter what the law actually says).
@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.
I was not commenting on CHS and details of the lawsuit, just how I thought trademarks are supposed to work. But I think I remember someone saying that CHS named something that was too GW-ish like female Eldar Farseer or Eldar Farseer on Jetbike (or something, I don't know about the details) and if it was not labeled sufficiently for GW it might have beed a reason for them to sue (no matter what the law actually says).
You are thinking of "Doomseer Ilyana." (I think that's how it was spelled)
The miniature was found to infringe...whatever Frankenstein amalgam of a claim GW was allowed to throw at it. But CHS was not found to infringe the asserted "Eldar Farseer" mark, if I recall the judgement correctly.
poda_t wrote: @ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.
And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.
There is defending your IP, and then there is trying to bully the competition.
poda_t wrote: @ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.
And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.
There is defending your IP, and then there is trying to bully the competition.
Care to guess which one I think GW was up to?
The Auld Grump
Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas.
You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas.
You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.
Steelmage99 wrote: Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas. You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.
So I can assume this happened twice in the trial?
Yes. Absolutely. Some pages back you can find quotes.
It first happened in Merrett's initial deposition. He said, "This thing is a copy of our idea, that's the best I can come up with." He rampantly confused copyright and trademarks throughout the depo, but that was pretty darn explicit. Then he said the same thing in his second depo. Then he said basically the same thing at trial...more than once.
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 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.
That's my personal favorite.
There's also fun stuff like this, which is idiotic, but at least a logical argument:
[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.
And this, which departs from logic and edges its way into preposterous:
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.
Which is really funny in the context of this testimony:
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.
All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright:
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.
Which is interesting, because here Merrett testifies that GW's claim chart (which contains the sum total of GW's evidence apart from Merrett's testimony) GW doesn't actually include a work of art that Chapterhouse is alleged to have infringed, but chose instead to include an illustration that is indicative of the date at which Games Workshop began using an idea that Chapterhouse is accused of infringing.
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.
TheAuldGrump wrote: However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.
And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.
I have no doubt that their lawyers told them both of these things and quite a few other similar things as well. What we have here seems to be a case of "The customer (GW) is always right." GW probably just waved these concerns away, figuring from their past experience that Chapterhouse would fold immediately, so none of these things would ever come up in a court of law. GW was just doing its normal bullying, running roughshod over any company that GW thought was infringing on its IP. I think their own law firm got bullied a bit by the GW board as well. would love to read some of the BOD's meeting minutes regarding the suit. I imagine the minutes would be as entertaining as some of the depositions and courtroom testimony....
All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright
Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.
All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright
Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.
The two are not mutually exclusive - indeed the state of being bored is conducive to not understanding.
I think that they gave GW some 'sympathy wins'.
I also think that a number of those will be stripped away in appeals.
The Auld Grump - so, Merrett became GW's IP guy because of attitude, not skill?
All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright
Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.
This is a case of human nature at work.
If you give people two options, then they'll sit there and worry about which one is right forever. They'll consider, and side with someone.
If you give them two opposite choices, and one in the middle, people will almost always pick the one in the middle. It happens in surveys, opinion polls and loads of other places where you need people to have strong opinions about things they don't care about.
GW's lawyers, at the very last moment, offered the jury a middle road solution, and they took it because it was the middle of the road.
Thanks for the racap weeble1000. I browsed loosely through this thread and didn't know the exact depth of their ineptitude. Now it feels like they actually want to lose this case.
It's pretty clear from some of the awful testimony that GW never thought for one second "what do we do if they lawyer up and see this thing through?" It just never crossed their mind that chapterhouse having a competent defense was in the realm of possibility. They were an SEC team scheduling a D2 team to start the season as a warm up game. When they got to the stadium the Patriots lined up across from them and they weren't prepared. I almost feel bad for their legal team having to spend all this time trying to win an unwinnable case that relied on the other party backing down.
I wonder who told Kirby he'd spent an 'indecent' amount of money on the case. That doesn't seem like the word you'd volunteer for your own investor report. Unless he is so crazy he's actually proud of the current victories over CHS. It's hard to know with GW management.
jonolikespie wrote: It's possible he was using that because it was the word investors kept throwing in his face.
That's my interpretation. Otherwise it is a really weird choice of phrasing. Saying "indecent amount of your money" is so potentially damaging that I don't think he would have said it if it hadn't already been said to him more than a few times.
jonolikespie wrote: It's possible he was using that because it was the word investors kept throwing in his face.
That's my interpretation. Otherwise it is a really weird choice of phrasing. Saying "indecent amount of your money" is so potentially damaging that I don't think he would have said it if it hadn't already been said to him more than a few times.
Even then.. That's a phrase you should never actually use so you don't scare off potential investors.
Howard A Treesong wrote: I wonder who told Kirby he'd spent an 'indecent' amount of money on the case. That doesn't seem like the word you'd volunteer for your own investor report. Unless he is so crazy he's actually proud of the current victories over CHS. It's hard to know with GW management.
Only the insane have strength enough to prosper;
only those that prosper
truly judge what is sane.
@ Auld Grump Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
That works all well and good for, say, Pepsi taking "Popsi" to court (fakety fake fake, by the way), but doesn't really fly in this case, considering that any 3rd party 'knockoff' manufacturer that spends $100 putting up fliers has put more money into advertising than GW has in the last decade, and probably done more to raise awareness of the 'hobby' and GW itself, to boot!
Any and all 'front end work' really only would include the design of the models and creation of the story to go along with them, which, as we've also seen, hasn't really been done by GW either, but rather by the hundreds of Science Fiction authors and artists that came before them, which they ripped off.
just for the sake of responding to not just this one but all of the other responses to my remarks: I should have taken greater care identifying what I meant by "knockoff". By "knockoff" I mean something that is inspired, and aims to present a different aesthetic but is not intended to replace a product (line) wholesale, but supplement it. IE: Anvil Industry's exo-lords, kromlech's bionic bits (or the orks, because, PIRATE HATS FOR EVERYONE!!!). Additionally, something that steps out and identifies that it is not infringing on a trademark either. Hence, "Knockoff" because GW will harpoon you if you use Dark Elves anywhere in your product name, etc.
@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.
That works all well and good for, say, Pepsi taking "Popsi" to court (fakety fake fake, by the way), but doesn't really fly in this case, considering that any 3rd party 'knockoff' manufacturer that spends $100 putting up fliers has put more money into advertising than GW has in the last decade, and probably done more to raise awareness of the 'hobby' and GW itself, to boot!
Any and all 'front end work' really only would include the design of the models and creation of the story to go along with them, which, as we've also seen, hasn't really been done by GW either, but rather by the hundreds of Science Fiction authors and artists that came before them, which they ripped off.
just for the sake of responding to not just this one but all of the other responses to my remarks:
I should have taken greater care identifying what I meant by "knockoff". By "knockoff" I mean something that is inspired, and aims to present a different aesthetic but is not intended to replace a product (line) wholesale, but supplement it. IE: Anvil Industry's exo-lords, kromlech's bionic bits (or the orks, because, PIRATE HATS FOR EVERYONE!!!). Additionally, something that steps out and identifies that it is not infringing on a trademark either. Hence, "Knockoff" because GW will harpoon you if you use Dark Elves anywhere in your product name, etc.
Bad example - Dark Elf is not a property that GW owns.... It is in fact a creature from Norse mythology, and would be like trying to trademark Lizardman.
Maybe you meant Dark Eldar?
And, again, there is nothing illegal with saying that your product is compatible with GW Dark Eldar, just make sure that you jump through the proper hoops with a statement that you do not own the term Dark Eldar, that Dark Eldar is a trademark of Games Workshop, and etc..
But do avoid using GW's trade dress while discussing compatibility.
Do not make your packaging look like an official GW product.
Holdenstein wrote: The Chapterhouse Studios website has been down for maintenance for a little while now.
Signs of a settlement?
Interesting. If so, I wonder why. From what I gather he could keep his business going. Only thing I can think of if his business is closed is GW bought him out basically so they could keep it all quiet. Most likely cheaper to buy him out than to do a retrial and keep going. How many millions did GW spend on the lawsuit? Cheaper to give him a few hundred thousand dollars, more than he may ever get from selling his products, and now he can live comfortably for the rest of his life.
Or his site his down and being a one man show will take time to get back up again.
angelofvengeance wrote: For me personally, the only thing I really liked from his range of stuff was the Stormraven conversion kit. Other stuff was just meh.
I would hope you agree, though, that anyone should be able to produce 'meh' products without being sued, yes?
A persistent irony throughout this whole affair is that it probably would have been cheaper and easier for GW to achieve its goals simply through market forces. Just look at the modular combi-weapons in the new Space Marine kit. Where did GW get that idea from?
Imagine how much better of a position GW would be in now if the company actually chose to do what it says it does: make the best miniatures in the world. Come to the market with a better product at a better price. Leverage your relative size to compete, not in litigation, but on price, quality, and selection.
angelofvengeance wrote: For me personally, the only thing I really liked from his range of stuff was the Stormraven conversion kit. Other stuff was just meh.
Imagine how much better of a position GW would be in now if the company actually chose to do what it says it does: make the best miniatures in the world. Come to the market with a better product at a better price. Leverage your relative size to compete, not in litigation, but on price, quality, and selection.
I actually said pretty much the same thing back in the early 2000's when more companies, like PP, started releasing miniature games. I figured that GW would leverage it's market presence, experience, and financial strength to create better and cheaper models to prevent any competitor from gaining more than a foothold in the overall market.
Checking their not-Aegis KS the most recent post was 9/5 and titled "Its Coming".
So perhaps the web store is just getting a lot of new product entered
angelofvengeance wrote: For me personally, the only thing I really liked from his range of stuff was the Stormraven conversion kit. Other stuff was just meh.
I would hope you agree, though, that anyone should be able to produce 'meh' products without being sued, yes?
A persistent irony throughout this whole affair is that it probably would have been cheaper and easier for GW to achieve its goals simply through market forces. Just look at the modular combi-weapons in the new Space Marine kit. Where did GW get that idea from?
Imagine how much better of a position GW would be in now if the company actually chose to do what it says it does: make the best miniatures in the world. Come to the market with a better product at a better price. Leverage your relative size to compete, not in litigation, but on price, quality, and selection.
We'll have none of that logical capitalist propaganda in here!!!
Hats off to anyone giving modern GW the big ol' finger. If I could, I'd go drop a few bucks on Chapterhouse products right now just because...
While I will always purchase GW products, as long as they are not finecast garbage, I get annoyed at their monopolistic behavior and planned obsolescence (like paint pots DESIGNED to reduce the lifespan by exposing paint surface area to air every time the pot is opened). I think that they are WAY too quick to attack other mini producers in an effort to line their coffers even more. If they stuck to really producing what their customers want then they'd secure the market share without the need for additional litigation.
The Chapterhouse Spore Pod is awesome! As is their space bug defense line, which I snagged post-Kickstarter. I agree that some of their bits have had soft detail, but I believe they were making pre-heresy jump packs before GW or FW were (and thus, I was able to get some for a project back when I needed them!). I hope they continue to provide alternative bits, and that other companies (including the plethora in Poland ) do, too.
Davor wrote: Cheaper to give him a few hundred thousand dollars, more than he may ever get from selling his products, and now he can live comfortably for the rest of his life.
I'm sorry. What?
Live comfortanly for the rest of his life on a few hundred thousand? Maybe if he died in a year... MAYBE.
Davor wrote: Cheaper to give him a few hundred thousand dollars, more than he may ever get from selling his products, and now he can live comfortably for the rest of his life.
I'm sorry. What?
Live comfortanly for the rest of his life on a few hundred thousand? Maybe if he died in a year... MAYBE.
Eric
100k would bearly keep me in wine, loose women and drugs and the divorce to go along with them when my wife caught me.
I have a query for the experts out there - while the appeals process has taken some months in 'real time', how much (as a very VERY rough approximation) would have been spent by the professionals working the case? I have an understanding that it's not something that a lawyer would be devoted to full time, week in, week out, but as an estimate - an hour a week? More/less? Just to gauge how much time has passed ' actually devoted to this case alone'
I just want to note that the extant public record does not give any indication as to what is going on 'behind the scenes', so to speak.
There could be plenty of reasons for why the briefing schedule for the appeal remains suspended. Ultimately, the court suspended the briefing schedule, and the court will have to reinstate it, likely not until petitioned by the parties to do so, unless the parties settle out and request to have the appeal closed.
But for those wondering what reason a party might have for delaying briefing on an appeal, eddieazrael raises a salient question. Delay, on its face, costs pretty well nothing. Briefing costs money. Cost is one of the the simplest, most basic reasons a party might wish to delay briefing an appeal. Lawyers sitting on their hands don't cost money. Lawyers researching and drafting briefs cost money.
Now, that said, another reason to delay briefing is to allow time to prepare, which is the flip side of the cost coin. If you need more time to prepare your briefs, you might want to drag out the deadlines by which they must be submitted to the court. While the briefing schedule is suspended, the clock isn't running.
Like I said, the possibilities are many, but that just gives you an idea about the economics of litigation. Every bit of time a lawyer puts into a file will be billed. If you don't want to pay your lawyers, it is much cheaper to have them gin up roadblocks than prepare federal appellate court briefs. Conversely, if a lawyer thinks that he might not get paid for his time, he would tend to prefer to spend as little of that time as possible on the file so as to minimize any potential loss.
Bear in mind that lawyers have an ethical obligation to zealously represent the best interests of their client. If you are representing a client and the deadline for a brief is coming up, you've got to darn well draft that brief because if you don't it will harm your client's interests. However, if there's no deadlines coming up, such as when a briefing schedule is suspended indefinitely, a lawyer has little obligation to put time into a file.
This is just general litigation stuff. Again, there's no way to really know what is going on behind the scenes by looking at the public record. All that record shows is that the parties went into standard, mediated settlement negotiations after which the court suspended the briefing schedule indefinitely.
That was more than 7 months ago, which seems like an unusual length of time for court mediated settlement negotiations. Something is happening to drag this thing out, whether it is deliberate stall tactics, productive settlement negotiations, random happenstance, or an act of God we just have no way of knowing based on the public record.
I know it's not news of the court case directly, so I hope it's appropriate to this thread but with the Chapterhouse website still off line I was looking at their Facebook page - appears from their comments there that Games Workshop have applied to have their accounts frozen. Presumably this would explain why the web store is still down...
If that is the case it suggests they're probably not about to make friends and come out with a settlement?
Corrin wrote: I know it's not news of the court case directly, so I hope it's appropriate to this thread but with the Chapterhouse website still off line I was looking at their Facebook page - appears from their comments there that Games Workshop have applied to have their accounts frozen. Presumably this would explain why the web store is still down...
If that is the case it suggests they're probably not about to make friends and come out with a settlement?
Wow... feth GW. I hope they get what's coming to them.
Quote from their FB page:
Games workshop has filed to have our assets frozen for the time being. So that means if customers ordered we could not spend the funds to ship out products. That's why the site is down for now.
How is that legal? There's no court decision (apart from the 25k) that would support that, is there? Since the 25k is still in appeal (isn't it?) how is that even relevant?
How is that legal? There's no court decision (apart from the 25k) that would support that, is there? Since the 25k is still in appeal (isn't it?) how is that even relevant?
What the actual feth?
IANAL and have no experience with the court systems, but I wager it's some stalling tactic to try and push them to settle. Can't run your business, which means you can't earn money which means you can't pay bills. Better settle so you can get back to earning money and not be homeless and starving to death on the streets.
US Justice system is big about that kind of unfair stuff to entice plea deals and settlements.
Of course it doesn't say that they had that GRANTED, just that they've filed. So it might be preemptive just in case, so they don't have orders that can't be fulfilled if it suddenly gets granted.
Corrin wrote: I know it's not news of the court case directly, so I hope it's appropriate to this thread but with the Chapterhouse website still off line I was looking at their Facebook page - appears from their comments there that Games Workshop have applied to have their accounts frozen. Presumably this would explain why the web store is still down...
If that is the case it suggests they're probably not about to make friends and come out with a settlement?
Do you have a link? This would suggest something related to the $25K judgment. I would assume that Chapterhouse would be able to get a bond for the appeal.
Well, any way that you slice it, a party's right to appeal a judgment should not be barred by inability to pay said judgement prior to the appeal, but the plaintiff can demand that the money be put into escrow or something, which can cause some bureaucratic/financial difficulties. Assuming that this is what is going on, GW could be trying to make things as difficult for Chapterhouse Studios as humanly possible, and demanding escrow of the judgement is very cheap on GW's end, but potentially very frustrating for an effectively indigent defendant. It does, however, fly totally in the face of the reasoning by which GW asked the jury to award $25,000.00 in damages
we're not looking to be punitive, as we've said all along. All we've ever wanted is for Chapterhouse to stop selling its infringing products. We understand it's a small company...we ask just a simple nominal sum of $25,000, which quite clearly is well below even his claimed 15 percent profit rate.
Stuff like this can happen on a much larger scale in patent litigation, when you have things like billion dollar judgements. It's shenanigans though, and if the appeal goes forward, I doubt games like these will shine a favorable light on GW, especially in the context of statements like the one above.
Edit: Here's the Facebook comment:
Games workshop has filed to have our assets frozen for the time being. So that means if customers ordered we could not spend the funds to ship out products. That's why the site is down for now. October 6 at 1:19pm
The comment I referred to has been quoted above by Waynethegame, it's a comment in response to a question from a customer on their Facebook page.
Unfortunately from other comments it looks like this asset freeze is also preventing them from fulfilling some existing orders, which whilst seemingly not their fault is going to hurt their business should they manage to escape their current situation.
Though it's entirely supposition I'm assuming that this is too big a case now for GW to loose, given the recent emphasis on the value of their IP. If they can't be confident of the outcome of the current case then they may look for another approach - freeze their finances and I can't imagine Chapterhouse will last long... I feel for the people behind the company.
Next in the line of dirty tricks GW is prepared to employ to crush opposition. They can't win clean in court, but they can pull other tricks to choke off CHS ability to run on a daily basis rather than allow the courts make the final decision on their fate.
I don't understand why this is allowed, as while litigation is still being sorted out to allow one side to hobble the opponent as part of a delaying tactic is injust. I can see the purpose, but common sense says it's being exploited here.
From their facebook page for those interested (dated October 6)
Chapterhouse Studios wrote:Games workshop has filed to have our assets frozen for the time being. So that means if customers ordered we could not spend the funds to ship out products. That's why the site is down for now.
Could CHS get around this by joining Patreon and letting people pay them 'to create?' In return, instead of access to special comics, etc., CHS could create and send conversion kits out to their Patrons.
Stuff like this can happen on a much larger scale in patent litigation, when you have things like billion dollar judgements. It's shenanigans though, and if the appeal goes forward, I doubt games like these will shine a favorable light on GW, especially in the context of statements like the one above.
One big difference though. When a big company does it to a big company - it is the equivalent of flipping them the bird. Rude and uncouth - but largely ignored.
In this case, GW knows that a few weeks with frozen assets can be enough to cause CHS to have to go get a day job and possibly roll over on the case (depending on how well he has separated personal from company assets). It is the equivalent to a 300 pound line backer giving the band geek a wedgey till he screams uncle.
Hopefully they will get it in front of a judge rather quickly and that judge will have sense enough to release their assets.
This is very weird... What is the possible justification for the asset freeze? Are they going forward with the judgement and ignoring the appeal?
I thought the lawyers had already worked out details on the $25,000 thing.
timd wrote: This is very weird... What is the possible justification for the asset freeze? Are they going forward with the judgement and ignoring the appeal?
GW can still execute the money judgment and do things like obtain an order to freeze assets until
1) they get paid, or
2) chapterhouse obtains a stay by posting a bond.
Prevents a debtor from blowing all of their money or absconding while an appeal is being run. Why a bond wasn't posted or GW wasn't paid is anyones guess.
Personally no clue where they filed the order. I assume they would do so in texas rather than in illinios?
darefsky wrote: Not sure why the hold up though. Didn't CHS do a kickstarter to raise the funds for the judgement?
Chapterhouse did a Kickstarter to fund defensive wall products, and while the KS raised something like 30K, I don't think it was terribly profitable.
The good news is that Chapterhouse still has pro-bono representation, so just about regardless of what this does to Chapterhouse Studios, the appeal will likely go forward unless the parties settle out. Though I can't imagine how GW filing to freeze Chapterhouse's assets would be productive towards a settlement.
If GW does get in front of a judge over this deal, I also can't imagine how it would go well for the company, and this is the sort of thing that would probably give someone like Judge Posner the 'red ass', so to speak, if the appeal goes forward.
GW spent more than, what, six times the value of this judgement on printing documents just for the damn trial. It isn't about the money for GW, at all, in any way. This means that it is strategic. Which means that GW is effectively taking advantage of the indigence of the defendant to deny the defendant's right to an appeal. Shenanigans. And it will not be looked well upon.
I believe you and czakk have both posted sentiments like this in the thread going back as far as pre-trial discovery, yet as far as I know, nothing punitive has resulted from their behavior. Given that, why should we expect the situation to change now?
Keep spending money on the trial, GW. Let's see if you can beat a -42% drop in profits with lower sales and the continued IP fight. This is ludicrous. The amount of time and money invested in this lengthy ordeal, they could have simply produced the missing models that Chapterhouse leveraged, made them better, spent money advertising them, had clean rules for them, and probably have given all the staff a pizza party for a job well done.
The comment I referred to has been quoted above by Waynethegame, it's a comment in response to a question from a customer on their Facebook page.
Unfortunately from other comments it looks like this asset freeze is also preventing them from fulfilling some existing orders, which whilst seemingly not their fault is going to hurt their business should they manage to escape their current situation.
Though it's entirely supposition I'm assuming that this is too big a case now for GW to loose, given the recent emphasis on the value of their IP. If they can't be confident of the outcome of the current case then they may look for another approach - freeze their finances and I can't imagine Chapterhouse will last long... I feel for the people behind the company.
..Doh, ninja edit
One problem with this. Add-on/Aftermarket parts increase the value of their IP. People who don't want a normal thunderhawk, want it fancied up? They don't buy a normal thunderhawk. But then, CH makes their 'fancy up' kit- suddenly, those people have an incentive to buy a thunderhawk!
Same with the Tervigon conversion kit, even- when that was around, it ecouraged people to buy GW kits in order to field a unit in their army, even though GW hadn't released that kit yet. So sad that it's a less expensive unit than the 'official' tervigon, but that's what you get for not releasing your models before your books.
It's sort of funny to me, but the evidence in this thread is so damning that even the staunchest GW defenders can come to make claims against their actions in this case.
40k and WHFB might be interesting realms of imagination with nice models, but the company that sells them is abysmal. I had been thinking of getting back into finishing my Dark Eldar army, but reading the newest "technique" GW is applying makes me think the farthest I'll ever get is secondhand purchase of a 5th edition book, after which I will avoid any future purchases from this company (at least until its management is gutted...or they collapse, whichever's first).
prplehippo wrote: So when he says GW "froze his accounts" was he just referring to CHS's accounts or are his personal accounts frozen as well?
That would depend on how Nick's and CHS's accounts were set up. Although, if his personal finances weren't already well ring-fenced before all this started, I'll be flabbergasted if they haven't been thoroughly restructured by now.
If CH didn't put up a bond and get an Order to stay execution of the Judgment, GW has every right to execute on their judgment even while the appeal is pending. In my state the bond is twice the amount to the judgment. But to execute on the judgment GW would have to transfer the judgment to Texas. Not sure about the asset freeze thing but GW could have the Sheriff seize CH property, including CH's bank accounts and its inventory at its store, as well as grab any money on hand. If CH owned any real estate GW might be able to put a lien on it and foreclose. Depends on how creditor friendly Texas is. You can do it in most states but not all; you can't do it in Florida.
Nick's private assets would not be at risk unless he was sued personally, with his company, and if the judgment was against him personally. I haven't been following the case close enough to known those facts.
If GW collects on its judgment part of the appeal would become moot.
I believe you and czakk have both posted sentiments like this in the thread going back as far as pre-trial discovery, yet as far as I know, nothing punitive has resulted from their behavior. Given that, why should we expect the situation to change now?
Well, in similar circumstances* I'd insist on a bond or some other form of security for my client and if that didn't happen I'd advise the client move to collect on the judgment including freezing the company's assets (to stop my clients money being spent to finance a fight against my client for example).
If you are a judgment creditor that's just how you roll. You won, you are entitled to your payment. No point in a dry judgment.
I don't think it will concern an appellate court. CHS has top flight counsel - they know how to post a bond or petition for a stay of judgment. If they complain about it, I'm sure GW will point out the fact that they had options to prevent it from happening. If there is no money to get a bond, all the more reason for the asset freeze.
Spoiler:
Some of the motion practice raised my eyebrow a bit, but that's down to different court systems and different values. In tax court up north that sort of motion practice would get you thrown out on your ear with a massive costs award and a ruined reputation. 22-ish judges, over 5000 cases filed each year, they don't have time for that bs. A major trial gets a week of court time tops. Majority get done in a day. Informals in a couple of hours.
Stuff like this can happen on a much larger scale in patent litigation, when you have things like billion dollar judgements. It's shenanigans though, and if the appeal goes forward, I doubt games like these will shine a favorable light on GW, especially in the context of statements like the one above.
One big difference though. When a big company does it to a big company - it is the equivalent of flipping them the bird. Rude and uncouth - but largely ignored.
In this case, GW knows that a few weeks with frozen assets can be enough to cause CHS to have to go get a day job and possibly roll over on the case (depending on how well he has separated personal from company assets). It is the equivalent to a 300 pound line backer giving the band geek a wedgey till he screams uncle.
Hopefully they will get it in front of a judge rather quickly and that judge will have sense enough to release their assets.
Stuff like this can happen on a much larger scale in patent litigation, when you have things like billion dollar judgements. It's shenanigans though, and if the appeal goes forward, I doubt games like these will shine a favorable light on GW, especially in the context of statements like the one above.
One big difference though. When a big company does it to a big company - it is the equivalent of flipping them the bird. Rude and uncouth - but largely ignored.
In this case, GW knows that a few weeks with frozen assets can be enough to cause CHS to have to go get a day job and possibly roll over on the case (depending on how well he has separated personal from company assets). It is the equivalent to a 300 pound line backer giving the band geek a wedgey till he screams uncle.
Hopefully they will get it in front of a judge rather quickly and that judge will have sense enough to release their assets.
What about compensation for business lost?.
Well, the issue is that there really isn't anything legally 'wrong' with GW filing to freeze Chapterhouse's assets, as far as I am aware.
Given the disparity between the parties and the completely inconsequential nature of the money to Games Workshop, it is pretty clear that the motive behind any move to freeze assets is less about preserving the plaintiff's ability to collect the judgment and more about causing the defendant financial hardship. Games Workshop told the jury that the $25,000.00 award is simply a nominal sum intended to send a message, rather than to be punitive, and that all Games Workshop wants is for Chapterhouse Studios to stop selling the infringing products.
Well the Court's injunction does exactly that: prevents Chapterhouse Studios from selling the infringing products. Freezing Chapterhouse's assets, on the other hand, prevents the company from conducting business outside of that injunction, i.e. it prevents Chapterhouse Studios from selling products that were either not accused in the lawsuit or that were found to be non-infringing. While this might be an 'unintended' consequence of Chapterhouse's inability to pay, bond, or escrow the $25,000.00 judgement, it expressly contravenes Games Workshop's stated intent.
We know that the magistrate judge described Game's Workshop's approach to this litigation as a zero sum game, in which Games Workshop wanted Chapterhouse Studios dead, gone, and out of business. Games Workshop took a contrary position at trial, stating that its goals were rather limited and reasonable in nature. Now Games Workshop is apparently trying to freeze the defendant's assets, which has an impact quite beyond this limited goal, and would appear to be treating the case, once again, as a zero sum game.
It isn't 'wrong', but it is a dick move with potentially dire consequences for a struggling company that has already been dragged through almost four years of costly litigation in which it prevailed on more than 70% of the asserted claims; claims that Games Workshop testified to being 'not the strongest', 'sounding crazy', and being based on ownership of properties that Games Workshop understood could not be owned by anyone. And in theory it could, for all practical purposes, prevent the defendant from appealing the judgement; a judgement that one of the top IP litigation firms in the world agreed to appeal pro-bono.
It is what it is. We can all cross our fingers and hope that this does not adversely impact Chapterhouse's ability to appeal. But I think it is a pretty good indication that the parties are not in productive settlement discussions.
weeble1000 wrote: But I think it is a pretty good indication that the parties are not in productive settlement discussions.
Which begs the question, what's taking so long? I certainly hope that at some point a judge somewhere would step in and say enough is enough, let's get this done. No wonder so many people disparage our judicial system.
Some countries have laws ( I think atleast in the US ) that require companies to fight for their IP or they will lose the "seriousness" of their IP ownership in the eyes of law. Does anyone know if such laws exist with this case?
As in, if company X did nothing for ages when company Y plagiated/stole/whatever their IP, X could potentially lose the right to hold on to their IP or for the least, severely hamper any attempts at copyright claims in the future.
RunicFIN wrote: Some countries have laws ( I think atleast in the US ) that require companies to fight for their IP or they will lose the "seriousness" of their IP ownership in the eyes of law. Does anyone know if such laws exist with this case?
As in, if company X did nothing for ages when company Y plagiated/stole/whatever their IP, X could potentially lose the right to hold on to their IP or for the least, severely hamper any attempts at copyright claims in the future.
There is some general truth to that, but isn't really applicable to this particular case. GW was attempting to assert ownership of certain concepts that in many cases they couldn't prove ownership, and in many other cases were things that were patently absurd (like saying they owned Roman numerals and chevrons). In other cases they tried to assert that a creation of theirs in one medium (a two dimensional picture) somehow resulted in ownership of anything inspired by that picture in any other medium. They also asserted ownership of "ideas" on their own, not "expressions of ideas," which is what IP law actually protects.
A company does need to make good faith efforts to protect their intellectual property. In this case, many of GW's efforts at protection were nothing resembling good faith. Additionally, there are many ways they could have attempted to pursue this effort at protection other than filing a lawsuit with the stated purpose to shut down the company; some of those ways would have actually strengthened their future claims far more than having CHS go out of business. For example, if they had worked out a license agreement with CHS to use certain trademarks, then GW would have made some money, and the existence of that license agreement would serve to enhance the strength of GW's mark because it would be an example of other companies recognizing and acknowledging GW's mark.
(Weeble, czakk, et al., please feel free to correct my understanding if it's not accurate. My knowledge of IP law pretty much consists of what I've learned from people like y'all while following this case for the past 3+ years.)
weeble1000 wrote: But I think it is a pretty good indication that the parties are not in productive settlement discussions.
Which begs the question, what's taking so long? I certainly hope that at some point a judge somewhere would step in and say enough is enough, let's get this done. No wonder so many people disparage our judicial system.
Court's don't usually care if things drag out when it isn't adversely impacting their docket. Besides, things take a long time in litigation. There hasn't been any motion practice at the appellate court. There has, however, been some action with the lower court. The appeal isn't going to go forward until this issue is resolved, and apparently there is a hearing on October 23rd.
09/17/2014 495 CITATION to Discover Assets issued as to Chapterhouse Studios LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Notice)(jh, ) (Entered: 09/18/2014) 09/24/2014 496 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: All matters relating to the referral of this matter having been resolved, this case is returned to the District Judge. Referral terminated. Mailed notice (ber, ) (Entered: 09/24/2014) 10/10/2014 501 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The joint motion to reset the citation proceeding 497 is granted; the date for the citation proceeding is reset to 10/23/2014 at 9:30 a.m. The motion to withdraw the appearance of Julianne Hartzell as attorney is also granted. (mk) (Entered: 10/10/2014)
This is what is going on right now:
JOINT MOTION TO RESET CITATION PROCEEDING Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited (“GW”) and Chapterhouse Studios LLC (“Chapterhouse”) jointly state as follows: 1. On September 17, 2014, GW filed a Citation to Discover Assets against Chapterhouse. Pursuant to the Citation, Chapterhouse is producing documents by October 8, 2014 and was to appear in this court on October 14, 2014, at 9:30 a.m. for Examination. Further, pursuant to the Citation, except for certain exempt assets, Chapterhouse is prohibited from making or allowing any transfer or other disposition of its assets. 2. GW has agreed to lift the Citations’ asset freeze for the sole purpose of permitting Chapterhouse to fund travel from Texas to Chicago for its operator, Nick Villacci, to allow for his Examination. 3. In order to permit Mr. Villacci to travel more economically, GW and Chapterhouse jointly agree to reset the Citation proceeding for October 23, 2014, at 9:30 a.m
Freeze your assets so you can't earn money, require you to fly across country to be "examined"; quite possibly something that could have been accomplished via mail/electronic communication. Truly our system of juris prudence is antiquated.
agnosto wrote: Freeze your assets so you can't earn money, require you to fly across country to be "examined"; quite possibly something that could have been accomplished via mail/electronic communication. Truly our system of juris prudence is antiquated.
As others like czakk have articulated, both parties have rights.
There are equitable issues at work in this particular situation, but a party has to articulate those, which requires time, money, and counsel. Any equitable circumstances at work would be exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself, e.g. normally things would go one way, but in this case doing that would result in irreparable harm/injustice/etc. The good news is that Chapterhouse Studios has pro-bono counsel. That doesn't stop the company losing money because its assets are frozen and it cannot conduct business, but it does mean that Chapterhouse has the ability to respond.
Now, I definitely do not think this frees GW from much deserved scorn and derision. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Hopefully we will see a just result from all of this, and one that has a broader impact than Chapterhouse Studios. That will be the ultimate value in this litigation, and I think it behooves us as a community to never forget the contribution Chapterhouse Studios has made to it. When this thing is all said and done, and hopefully with a result that sets some good precedent protecting the work of artists in this industry, we shouldn't forget about Nick VIllacci having to fly back up to Chicago to unfreeze his assets.
There's a stiff cost to all of this, above and beyond the costs paid by pro-bono counsel. GW is trying to crush Chapterhouse Studios, and even if Chapterhouse is an entity in and of itself, there's a human component to it.
How ironic, most people's assets start to freeze in Chicago around this time most years.
Joking aside, you're quite right, for this case to go any more GW's way than it already has is somewhat unconscionable in regard to the wider implications. I have been a CHS customer, and I pledged to the KS for no reward because I appreciate that he has drawn a line in the sand, and that should be applauded and supported.
The legal precedent that most of what Chapterhouse did is perfectly legal will stand even if CHS goes out of business here. Putting CHS under doesn't benefit GW except as a victory for moral.
It would really be a shame if we lose CHS over this. I hope that's not the way things go.
I just talked to Nick about this, mine being an order in Limbo. On the up side, the hearing is the 23rd.
I also mentioned to him that the Russian recasters on Ebay are having a field day while CHS is down, and suggest he seek punitive damages from GW's freeze costing him legitimate sales of goods not effected by the judgment.
agnosto wrote: Freeze your assets so you can't earn money, require you to fly across country to be "examined"; quite possibly something that could have been accomplished via mail/electronic communication. Truly our system of juris prudence is antiquated.
As others like czakk have articulated, both parties have rights.
There are equitable issues at work in this particular situation, but a party has to articulate those, which requires time, money, and counsel. Any equitable circumstances at work would be exceptions to the rule, rather than the rule itself, e.g. normally things would go one way, but in this case doing that would result in irreparable harm/injustice/etc. The good news is that Chapterhouse Studios has pro-bono counsel. That doesn't stop the company losing money because its assets are frozen and it cannot conduct business, but it does mean that Chapterhouse has the ability to respond.
Now, I definitely do not think this frees GW from much deserved scorn and derision. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something. Hopefully we will see a just result from all of this, and one that has a broader impact than Chapterhouse Studios. That will be the ultimate value in this litigation, and I think it behooves us as a community to never forget the contribution Chapterhouse Studios has made to it. When this thing is all said and done, and hopefully with a result that sets some good precedent protecting the work of artists in this industry, we shouldn't forget about Nick VIllacci having to fly back up to Chicago to unfreeze his assets.
There's a stiff cost to all of this, above and beyond the costs paid by pro-bono counsel. GW is trying to crush Chapterhouse Studios, and even if Chapterhouse is an entity in and of itself, there's a human component to it.
I understand the equity issue; however, I fail to see how seizing his assets will achieve the end that the plaintiff desires if the defendant is unable to earn money to pay the judgement, unless of course you're inferring that a one-man operation as small as Nick's has $25k in assets to seize. No, I believe that the "system" has been created in such a way as to penalize small businesses and reward organizations who bring suite, win a relatively small judgement and then find other "legal" ways of achieving their ends via delay and stall tactics that drag out the final results of an appeal. The longer this goes on, it will only benefit GW while Chapterhouse ends up losing customers by being silent and unable to perform commerce.
My question here is if Nick will have legal recourse if the end result of the appeal is such that he is exonerated; my gut tells me no which means GW still wins because they've effectively created an environment whereby they may still achieve their ends, even if they lose the majority of their claims. I'll profess my ignorance here of how this all works but this is how it appears to me as a layperson.
Mentioned the freezing assets on Warseer's thread about CHS v. GW. Someone replied to my stating that it sounded like an underhanded tactic by saying that maybe it's GW just trying to protect what's owed to them by the judgment.
WayneTheGame wrote: Mentioned the freezing assets on Warseer's thread about CHS v. GW. Someone replied to my stating that it sounded like an underhanded tactic by saying that maybe it's GW just trying to protect what's owed to them by the judgment.
people will defend anything GW does.
Well you don't get to examine a debtor until after they have failed to pay you the money you owe. Freezing assets prior to the examination is meant to protect what is owed. They won't be frozen forever (although they might end up seized to pay the debt down the road as a result of the examination).
Perhaps the settlement conference didn't work out and that's why they've started the collection process. I'll keep a closer eye on pacer for a court order restarting the appeals process.
So if, hypothetically, Chapterhouse were to "win" their appeal and have all or nearly all of the rest go GW's infringement claims dismissed by the court, would they get their 25K back?
I know that won't help CH with the loss of money while their assets are frozen; I'm just curious.
The comment about protecting whats owed was me, im not defending gws methods in this case but ive been owed money via the court (in uk) and by the time it was chased up by balifs it was all moved to other places and i got nowt, so i have some simpathy for ANY person/company trying to ensure they get whats owed them. Yes its in appeal so it might not be needed but then it might.
Untill its all settled id say its the lawers (trying to) protect the judgement as it stands now.
S'Cipio wrote: So if, hypothetically, Chapterhouse were to "win" their appeal and have all or nearly all of the rest go GW's infringement claims dismissed by the court, would they get their 25K back?
I know that won't help CH with the loss of money while their assets are frozen; I'm just curious.
-S'Cipio
This is why there are equity issues at play here. If a judgement that might get flipped on appeal could, in the mean time, cause significant harm to a defendant, there is potentially an interest in preventing that harm, because it could be harm that the defendant should never suffer in the first place, right? The court can weigh the potential for 'irreparable' harm to one party against the potential harm or prejudice to the opposing party.
Let's say that you sue me and get a fat judgement, and that I file an appeal. The judgement is so big that getting a bond for it would require me to default on my mortgage and lose my home. If I do that and win the appeal, I'll be homeless after the appeal, even though I was found to not be liable for that judgement in the first place. Thus a judgement I should never have needed to pay caused me to lose my home.
Now, my interests should be weighed against the interests of the opposing party, as the opposing party has a right to collect that judgement should I lose the appeal.
But we all know that GW doesn't give two gaks about 25K that Chapterhouse will probably never be able to pay, even if it loses the appeal and its assets are liquidated. GW said as much to the damn jury. GW spent orders of magnitude more on the litigation than it even asked the jury for. GW trying to 'protect' this judgement is BS. That's not why GW is doing this, and that's why it is upsetting to me. Again, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should do it. Hopefully Judge Kennelly will put a boot up GW's ass and stay the judgement or something.
weeble1000 wrote: Hopefully Judge Kennelly will put a boot up GW's ass and stay the judgement or something.
Small hope there since he's part of the reason the case was appealable.
I feel for Nick as he goes through all of this; I'm going to find an excuse to buy some of his merchandise if/when he gets back up and running.
Yea, but don't forget that Kennelly denied both parties' motions for costs and denied all post-trial motions. Kennelly hates this case and harbors an abiding disregard for both parties. Remember that transcript when he joked about how he wasn't happy to see them back in his courtroom? These shenanigans by GW have put this case right back in front of him. It should be the Seventh Circuit's problem now, but despite that it is back in his courtroom clogging up his docket and once again demanding his attention. There's going to be an in-person hearing on this, because GW wants to seize Chapterhouse's assets prior to the appeal.
Chapterhouse Studios is an indigent defendant that doesn't have the money to get a damn appeal bond and GW is bothering the court trying to seize the company's meager assets on the justification that if it wins the appeal, those meager assets, which GW told the jury in front of the judge it wasn't interested in seizing, might no longer exist to be seized.
What is Kennelly going to do about it? Who knows. But them's the facts.
Nothing? IF he didn't do anything when GW couldn't even prove that they had ownership of what they claimed that they owned and he also didn't do anything on the multiple times that GW's counsel was caught lying to his face, I highly doubt that he will do anything regarding what is at most a "frownable offence".
Nothing? IF he didn't do anything when GW couldn't even prove that they had ownership of what they claimed that they owned and he also didn't do anything on the multiple times that GW's counsel was caught lying to his face, I highly doubt that he will do anything regarding what is at most a "frownable offence".
Yeah, agreed with this likelihood. I just can't wait for the case to be heard by the appeals courts. Since this action by GW seems to indicate that settlement talks (if any were occurring) have broken down, maybe it will light a fire under CHS pro-bono counsel to get this appeals process underway and have things ruled on, one way or the other, by the appeals court. It certainly isn't good for CHS for it to drag out anymore, and I can't see them settling after this unless it was a very beneficial one to CHS (and I can't see GW swallowing that, either).
Nothing? IF he didn't do anything when GW couldn't even prove that they had ownership of what they claimed that they owned and he also didn't do anything on the multiple times that GW's counsel was caught lying to his face, I highly doubt that he will do anything regarding what is at most a "frownable offence".
Yeah, agreed with this likelihood. I just can't wait for the case to be heard by the appeals courts. Since this action by GW seems to indicate that settlement talks (if any were occurring) have broken down, maybe it will light a fire under CHS pro-bono counsel to get this appeals process underway and have things ruled on, one way or the other, by the appeals court. It certainly isn't good for CHS for it to drag out anymore, and I can't see them settling after this unless it was a very beneficial one to CHS (and I can't see GW swallowing that, either).
Who says it's CHS dragging proceedings out? I was under the impression that was GW's doing.
jonolikespie wrote: That would fit with GWs tactics over the last 3 years, and CH really has no reason to want to drag it out.
Exactly. The longer this is dragged out, the longer CHS' s business is disrupted and the more money they lose, even with pro bono representation. It's like GW is trying to bleed them dry to force them to settle and drop the appeal.
jonolikespie wrote: That would fit with GWs tactics over the last 3 years, and CH really has no reason to want to drag it out.
Exactly. The longer this is dragged out, the longer CHS' s business is disrupted and the more money they lose, even with pro bono representation. It's like GW is trying to bleed them dry to force them to settle and drop the appeal.
RiTides wrote: Are you saying you think that sanction amount has been deducted from what CHS owe GW? I thought that sanction would be paid to the court, not to CHS.
The sanction was to be paid to Chapterhouse Studios to reimburse the company for fees associated with expediting US Copyright Office files, specifically files that demonstrated that Mr. Moskin "deliberately or at least recklessly" withheld discoverable documents. It wasn't to be paid to the Court, nor to Chaprterhouse's counsel, but to Chapterhouse Studios.
jonolikespie wrote: Could the judge just be grumpy that Moskin hasn't paid and be expecting him and GW to sort it out after this is all said and done?
It is a separate issue though, isn't it? The private debt of an attorney resulting from violating the rules of evidence has naught to do with the assets of that attorney's client. At least I can't see how it would.
Regardless, GW is considering $1,197 of the judgement debt to be satisfied. That's in black and white on the Citation Notice.
jonolikespie wrote: Could the judge just be grumpy that Moskin hasn't paid and be expecting him and GW to sort it out after this is all said and done?
It is a separate issue though, isn't it? The private debt of an attorney resulting from violating the rules of evidence has naught to do with the assets of that attorney's client. At least I can't see how it would.
Regardless, GW is considering $1,197 of the judgement debt to be satisfied. That's in black and white on the Citation Notice.
I guess it is possible that CHS has some sort of payment arrangement set up and the difference represents sums already received.
RiTides wrote: Yeah, but I like the idea of it being Moskin's fine plus interest more
I like it a lot less! What business does the personal sanction of any attorney have with the assets of his/her client? None, that's what. What is the earthly point of a personal sanction if you can foist if off on your client? And what relationship should a pre-trial, pre-verdict, pre-judgement, pre-appeal sanction have with a judgement debt?
A good maxim for paying personal sanctions is to pay them immediately. Not paying a nominal personal sanction to an indigent defendant for 18 months would be...not good. One of the American Bar Association's aggravating factors in the imposition of sanctions is "indifference to making restitution."
9.2 Aggravation
9.21 Definition.Aggravation or aggravating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be imposed.
9.22 Factors which may be considered in aggravation.
Aggravating factors include:
(a) prior disciplinary offenses; (E&J Gallo Winery v Cantine Rallo - Moskin was personally sanctioned for $1000)
(b) dishonest or selfish motive;
(c) a pattern of misconduct; (E&J Gallo Winery v Cantine Rallo - White and Case sanctioned for $10,000 for "consistently and repeatedly fail[ing] to respond to discovery requests in a straightforward manner")
(d) multiple offenses;
(e) bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency;
(f) submission of false evidence, false statements, or other deceptive practices during the disciplinary process;
(g) refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct;
(h) vulnerability of victim;
(i) substantial experience in the practice of law;
(j) indifference to making restitution.
The sanction Jonathan Moskin had imposed on him personally was literally to make restitution for $1,039.00 in administrative fees that Chapterhouse Studios unfairly incurred in uncovering his deliberate or reckless disregard for the rules of evidence. That's a fact. It is in Judge Kennelly's memorandum in black and white. Do you want to guess what Jonathan Moskin's salary is? I don't personally know what his salary is, but it would probably make you blush.
... No, I believe that the "system" has been created in such a way as to penalize small businesses and reward organizations who bring suite, win a relatively small judgement and then find other "legal" ways of achieving their ends via delay and stall tactics that drag out the final results of an appeal...
... No, I believe that the "system" has been created in such a way as to penalize small businesses and reward organizations who bring suite, win a relatively small judgement and then find other "legal" ways of achieving their ends via delay and stall tactics that drag out the final results of an appeal...
Of course, when this drags out forever, it does still hurt GW (remember that this case was one of Kirby's excuses for a poor year).
It may hurt Games workshop, it could kill chapterhouse. Games workshop could liquidate its self and be bought by warhammer ltd. All they need to do is change the name on the shops.
Ugh the discussion on Warseer about this is turning into a "lol CHS are scummy because they aren't fulfilling orders" attack on the anti-GW crowd. Somewhat amusing actually, especially being called a liar for saying that CHS's counsel are doing it pro-bono and that GW's reasons were wrong and unfounded because "The court awarded them 35% damages"
On another note... Can we get the thread title changed, since we don't REALLY have a verdict anymore. ; )
Eric
That's actually incorrect Eric. There is a verdict, and a judgement for that matter, which is technically different from the jury verdict. That verdict/judgement has been appealed, but as of now it stands pending a decision by the appellate court or some other development.
On another note...
Can we get the thread title changed, since we don't REALLY have a verdict anymore. ; )
Eric
That's actually incorrect Eric. There is a verdict, and a judgement for that matter, which is technically different from the jury verdict. That verdict/judgement has been appealed, but as of now it stands pending a decision by the appellate court or some other development.
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to be factually accurate, as much as I was trying to make a point.
It's far from over (apparently), and it would be nice if the title reflected that. Every time I open the thread, I wonder if "today will be the day" that there's finally something substantive in here, rather than more of us flapping our gums.
I'd be happy to update the thread title, but we've had so little news for so long, I'm not sure what to adjust it to. The appeal has been on hold for months!
Yes, thats pretty much the issue. Many of you may know that Games Workshop has been in a legal battle with us for almost 4 years now.. maybe its 5...
Anyways, they have asked the courts to freeze our assets and this has happened, this happened early September, not long after I posted the photos of the last set of products that were being produced and almost ready to ship.
What does this mean? #1 we have no means to ship or produce or pay for anything... and I mean anything, internet, phone, gas, nothing. We cant use or accept funds (well technically we can accept but I wont do that without a means to ship out new orders).
#2 the demon lines are sitting at the casters, waiting to be shipped but not able to be shipped to us. Even if they were shipped to me, I couldnt ship them out since they are technically "assets" and I am not allowed to ship them out.
#3 the company infrastructure, email, website, is pretty much frozen.
I am flying out (which GW allowed us to buy a ticket) to chicago next week to step in front of the courts and plead my case to have assets released and do business as normal until the appeal is addressed.
For those of you who are understandably upset, I am sorry, this has been a long and hard road and many of you have stood by me. I wish it was better but its been very stressful and now I have learned that its not only my company at risk but my personal assets and home are being threatened as well now.
Ill do my best to keep you all apprised.
And to be clear, no orders were taken after I found about about the freeze mid september.
Any orders that have issues were due to customers not putting in correct addresses and a new shipment needing to be sent (and couldnt due to the freeze).
Or lost orders in the postal system.
I wonder if the comment about locking up his personal assets is due to him not filing as an LLC... Technically, if properly distanced in how he set-up his company, they should only be able to take action versus the company, not an individual.
If That's The case then bad on him for having all his eggs in one basket and choosing to fight. I may not like what GW did but if it's within their rights I can't blame them.
skyth wrote:Actually you can blame then. Just because they have the right doesn't make it right.
Yep. GW can't possibly care if they get that $23,000 or not. This is purely vindictive and an attempt to bully CH.
Bahkara wrote:If That's The case then bad on him for having all his eggs in one basket and choosing to fight. I may not like what GW did but if it's within their rights I can't blame them.
He didn't choose to fight. His options where fight or close down his business.
skyth wrote:Actually you can blame then. Just because they have the right doesn't make it right.
Yep. GW can't possibly care if they get that $23,000 or not. This is purely vindictive and an attempt to bully CH.
Bahkara wrote:If That's The case then bad on him for having all his eggs in one basket and choosing to fight. I may not like what GW did but if it's within their rights I can't blame them.
He didn't choose to fight. His options where fight or close down his business.
That first part is basically the issue. To GW $25,000 is probably a drop in the bucket, and whether or not they get that money is of no consequence. To CHS it's a lot more. S o this is purely out of spite to try and stall as long as possible, knowing that they can last and CHS cannot. It's a sad thing about the US justice system that whoever has the most money tends to always win precisely because of things like this; it's why it's so hard to fight unjust things like a big company going after a small one for nonsense - the big company can just play a war of attrition.
GW is doing this deliberately to force CHS to either not appeal and/or go bankrupt to get rid of them, and it's deplorable.
I suspect that this isn't so much that his personal finances and business finances are wrapped up together.
It's more likely that not being able to trade since September has cost him money which has affected things like mortgage payments, bills etc.
I believe Chapterhouse is his main or even sole source of income, and if he isn't trading he isn't getting paid.
On the other hand Chapterhouse were found guilty of some infringements, admittedly nowhere near as many as GW would have liked, so GW has the right to claim the money they are owed.
I just don't think putting somebody out of business is the right way to do it.
Sinful Hero wrote: Sure was nice of GW to allow Nick to buy a ticket to appear in court.
Why are they not seperating his assets between his personal and business? Probably because he just put it all in the same account?
There is a difference between a plaintiff trying to seize personal assets and being able to seize personal assets. Chapterhouse Studios is an LLC, and Nick Villacci is not a named defendant in the lawsuit. If the company has been run properly, Nick's personal assets should be well enough protected.
That Games Workshop is trying to seize Nick's personal assets is astounding and extremely aggressive. As a company that just wanted Chapterhouse Studios to stop selling the infringing products, it is abhorrent for Games Workshop to seek the personal assets of the owner. It goes far beyond Games Workshop's goal in the trial, as communicated to the fact finders, and by which arguments one must presume their opinions were influenced.
It is also goes beyond Games Workshop's quite obvious goal of putting Chapterhouse Studios out of business. Games Workshop going after Nick Villacci's personal assets is vindictive, abusive, bullying, and entirely unnecessary. One can hope that Judge Kennelly will put a stop to it, and that if he won't, the appellate court will.
Sinful Hero wrote: Sure was nice of GW to allow Nick to buy a ticket to appear in court.
Why are they not seperating his assets between his personal and business? Probably because he just put it all in the same account?
There is a difference between a plaintiff trying to seize personal assets and being able to seize personal assets. Chapterhouse Studios is an LLC, and Nick Villacci is not a named defendant in the lawsuit. If the company has been run properly, Nick's personal assets should be well enough protected.
That Games Workshop is trying to seize Nick's personal assets is astounding and extremely aggressive. As a company that just wanted Chapterhouse Studios to stop selling the infringing products, for Games Workshop to seek the personal assets of the owner is abhorrent.
Is that what they actually are trying to do? I thought it was just the LLC; I thought you couldn't go after personal assets unless the corporation did something illegal (that whole "piercing the veil" thing).
If they really are trying to go after his personal assets, well it makes sense. GW is the Imperium, and the Imperium doesn't rest until traitors/heretics are exterminated and ground into the dust, and their entire world blasted to oblivion so that nothing remains. I bet if it was legal they'd have tried to have him killed.
Befor jumping on gw he said his personel assets are threatend but not by who as said above it could be morgage or other creditors after his stuff. True it would probibly be caused by the lawsuit asset freeeze but it might not be gw after them. Theres not enough info to blame gw on personal assets, unless he didnt split bussiness and home.
It's certainly plausible that some of his assets (or a lot of them) are tied into the business in some way
eg did he work out of his house ? (if so did the business formally pay rent)
who bought his car (it could be a company asset, but still something he needs to get about etc)
In my (admittedly limited) experience small business owners are not good at keeping company and private stuff properly separate even if they do set up a LLC, work stuff gets used at home, home stuff is used at work etc
this makes it easy for a lawyer to argue that something should be considered a company asset even if the owner does not agree
If in fact CHS is an LLC then Nick could be conflating his personal financial woes and the business's. He could have used his house as collateral for a business loan which would naturally be affected by a freeze of business assets. Also, as has already been mentioned, his inability to conduct business will naturally affect his ability to pay his mortgage and bills, etc.
Tough all around. Sure, GW has a legal right to the court-ordered amount; however, since an appeal is in play it appears to just be sour grapes on their part to take this sort of action. Again, probably just another delay and scorched-earth tactic on GW Counsel's part to harm CHS as much as possible while dragging out the litigation process. The delay confuses me since CHS has pro-bono counsel while GW has to pay billable hours for theirs. Risk-reward I guess if the end result is them being able to show the world that they can litigate anyone to death, even if they receive pro-bono assistance.
agnosto wrote: If in fact CHS is an LLC then Nick could be conflating his personal financial woes and the business's. He could have used his house as collateral for a business loan which would naturally be affected by a freeze of business assets. Also, as has already been mentioned, his inability to conduct business will naturally affect his ability to pay his mortgage and bills, etc.
Tough all around. Sure, GW has a legal right to the court-ordered amount; however, since an appeal is in play it appears to just be sour grapes on their part to take this sort of action. Again, probably just another delay and scorched-earth tactic on GW Counsel's part to harm CHS as much as possible while dragging out the litigation process. The delay confuses me since CHS has pro-bono counsel while GW has to pay billable hours for theirs. Risk-reward I guess if the end result is them being able to show the world that they can litigate anyone to death, even if they receive pro-bono assistance.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the types of filings that we are discussing are far, far, far cheaper than appellate briefing.
Appellate briefing generally takes substantive document review, extensive legal research, lots of back and forth between counsel, drafting substantive memorandums, editing those drafts, revising those drafts, filing the appropriate documents, and appearing in person to argue motions. And once the briefing schedule gets reinstated, the dates are set and the clock is running. If you don't do the work, you run the risk of adversely impacting your client's interests. What we are discussing here is comparatively low impact in terms of billable hours.
Bahkara wrote: If That's The case then bad on him for having all his eggs in one basket and choosing to fight. I may not like what GW did but if it's within their rights I can't blame them.
Yes, you absolutely can.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's ethical.
jonolikespie wrote: Actually I think they have shown the world that their fortress walls are made of paper mache.
And that ultimately seems to amount to nothing at all if you are a small company trying to defend yourself from a mostly frivolous lawsuit since the court allows a bigger company to pull all of these shenanigans anyway.
People are putting all of the blame on GW because this move seems motivated by nothing other than spite, but the very idea of a court of law that allows such a thing to happen in the first place is completely appalling to me! Freezing a companies assets in such a way that prevents them from conducting any business at all, thereby probably condemning that company to bankruptcy, and doing it while the appeal process is still ongoing? That is the law?
What happens if CHS is forced into bankruptcy because of this freeze and the appellate court reverses the damages payment? Is Nick compensated for the loss of his business? By whom? Will he have to waste even more of his life on a counter suit?
This whole trial has been nothing but a freak show from the start and it really doesn't shine a very positive light in the US judicial system...
Given the mainstream media was apparently quite interested in Spots The Space Marine, anyone got any connections that are worth pointing this story at? Big bully corporation vs small home business is generally quite good for a few column inches, and GW deserves to get a(nother) kicking for this.
Azreal13 wrote: Given the mainstream media was apparently quite interested in Spots The Space Marine, anyone got any connections that are worth pointing this story at? Big bully corporation vs small home business is generally quite good for a few column inches, and GW deserves to get a(nother) kicking for this.
I think the big thing with Spots was that proceeds were being donated to a charity, and one for veterans at that, and the US is very big on veterans so anyone trying to take money from veterans is pure evil (in the same category as kicking puppies)
agnosto wrote: If in fact CHS is an LLC then Nick could be conflating his personal financial woes and the business's. He could have used his house as collateral for a business loan which would naturally be affected by a freeze of business assets. Also, as has already been mentioned, his inability to conduct business will naturally affect his ability to pay his mortgage and bills, etc.
Tough all around. Sure, GW has a legal right to the court-ordered amount; however, since an appeal is in play it appears to just be sour grapes on their part to take this sort of action. Again, probably just another delay and scorched-earth tactic on GW Counsel's part to harm CHS as much as possible while dragging out the litigation process. The delay confuses me since CHS has pro-bono counsel while GW has to pay billable hours for theirs. Risk-reward I guess if the end result is them being able to show the world that they can litigate anyone to death, even if they receive pro-bono assistance.
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the types of filings that we are discussing are far, far, far cheaper than appellate briefing.
Appellate briefing generally takes substantive document review, extensive legal research, lots of back and forth between counsel, drafting substantive memorandums, editing those drafts, revising those drafts, filing the appropriate documents, and appearing in person to argue motions. And once the briefing schedule gets reinstated, the dates are set and the clock is running. If you don't do the work, you run the risk of adversely impacting your client's interests. What we are discussing here is comparatively low impact in terms of billable hours.
I get that. What I don't get is the assumption that they appear to have that somehow all of that, which will have to happen eventually since they seem to be unwilling to settle, combined with these cheaper actions is somehow cheaper overall. If something is going to cost me $500, it's cheaper to pay the $500 than the $500 plus $50, plus $100, plus $50, etc... But that's common sense which appears to be completely absent in this case.
Azreal13 wrote: Given the mainstream media was apparently quite interested in Spots The Space Marine, anyone got any connections that are worth pointing this story at? Big bully corporation vs small home business is generally quite good for a few column inches, and GW deserves to get a(nother) kicking for this.
I would just LOVE to see this suit addressed on The Daily Show!
People are putting all of the blame on GW because this move seems motivated by nothing other than spite, but the very idea of a court of law that allows such a thing to happen in the first place is completely appalling to me! Freezing a companies assets in such a way that prevents them from conducting any business at all, thereby probably condemning that company to bankruptcy, and doing it while the appeal process is still ongoing? That is the law?
What happens if CHS is forced into bankruptcy because of this freeze and the appellate court reverses the damages payment? Is Nick compensated for the loss of his business? By whom? Will he have to waste even more of his life on a counter suit?
This whole trial has been nothing but a freak show from the start and it really doesn't shine a very positive light in the US judicial system...
First, wait to see how Judge Kennelly rules after the October 23rd hearing. Second, all the more reason to see this case in the hands of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal is very important, and it should not be surprising, given the significance of the legal issues at stake, that a top tier law firm has taken the appeal pro-bono with one of its senior partners at the helm.
I get that. What I don't get is the assumption that they appear to have that somehow all of that, which will have to happen eventually since they seem to be unwilling to settle, combined with these cheaper actions is somehow cheaper overall. If something is going to cost me $500, it's cheaper to pay the $500 than the $500 plus $50, plus $100, plus $50, etc... But that's common sense which appears to be completely absent in this case.
Azreal13 wrote: Given the mainstream media was apparently quite interested in Spots The Space Marine, anyone got any connections that are worth pointing this story at? Big bully corporation vs small home business is generally quite good for a few column inches, and GW deserves to get a(nother) kicking for this.
I'd like to see this as well, this is amounting to a kicking by the school bully behind the bike sheds at the moment. It needs a wider audience.
Looky Likey wrote:Spiteful move from GW.
It's been spiteful since the very beginning when GW issued legal proceedings on Xmas eve. I find it extremely worrying for the mental health of the people that would orchestrate such a thing, that they are treating it so personally.
And then you get the likes of Alan Merritt reputedly refusing to pick up a CHS miniature because of 'toxic resin'. What a prick.
Elemental wrote: I must admit, this has moved me from a disinterested "Oh GW, you so wacky." stance, to actively rooting for the company to perish.
Why? What about all the other staff that really have no say in how the company is run? Jobs are hard enough to come by, having yet another company go under won't help.
As critical as I am about another gaming company, I wouldn't want to see them go under either. There are plenty of people working there that have no say in the direction the company takes.
Elemental wrote: I must admit, this has moved me from a disinterested "Oh GW, you so wacky." stance, to actively rooting for the company to perish.
Why? What about all the other staff that really have no say in how the company is run? Jobs are hard enough to come by, having yet another company go under won't help.
As critical as I am about another gaming company, I wouldn't want to see them go under either. There are plenty of people working there that have no say in the direction the company takes.
Maybe a change in leadership is what's needed, nothing more. Maybe Kirby stepping down is the start of this change.
Kirby stepped down as CEO, he's still Chairman of the Board of Directors; don't hold your breath for any change.
The hearing on the 23rd has been postponed until November 11th. Apparently the asset freeze was a precursor to reopening settlement negotiations.
JOINT MOTION TO RESET CITATION PROCEEDING
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited (“GW”) and Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”) jointly state as follows:
1. On September 17, 2014, GW filed a Citation to Discover Assets against Chapterhouse.
The Citation commanded that Chapterhouse appear in this court October 14, 2014, at
9:30 a.m.
2. On October 8, 2014, GW and Chapterhouse agreed to postpone the Citation proceeding
to Thursday, October 23.
3. The parties have since reopened settlement negotiations. In order to provide additional
time for these negotiations, GW and Chapterhouse jointly agree to reset the Citation
proceeding for November 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.
Does this mean that Chapterhouse now has access to their funds again, or is this another stalling tactic taken to extend the period in which the assets are frozen?
If Chapterhouse has not regained access to their funds then this is not a good thing.
So, dear legal Oracles, was the freezing of assets a way for GW to gain a better position in the settlement negotiations?
Or are the the re-opened negotiations merely happening after, but not caused by, the freezing of assets?
Are CH's assets frozen now or is that postponed (and not executed) with the re-opening of negotiations?
weeble1000 wrote: The hearing on the 23rd has been postponed until November 11th. Apparently the asset freeze was a precursor to reopening settlement negotiations.
I'm sorry, but you are going to have to translate this one for me...
How is the asset freeze a precursor to reopening settlement negotiations? From that Facebook post that Nick posted, this asset freeze wasn't some automatic procedure, it was deliberate and requested by GW. Why is CHS continuing with the negotiations after the asset freeze instead of going straight to the appeal?
Can these types of asset freeze be used as a pressure tactic to force a defendant to cave in to further trial postponements?
It's possible (though I am totally guessing) that CHS felt that they were in a position of legal strength in the coming appeal hearings, and had left off settlement talks (possibly because they weren't satisfied with what GW was offering).
If that were the case, then this action freezing the assets of CHS could have been a attempt to strong-arm CHS back into settlement talks.
I'm totally inferring this here. The legal expert types can tell me if those are reasonable interpretations or not.
Saldiven wrote: It's possible (though I am totally guessing) that CHS felt that they were in a position of legal strength in the coming appeal hearings, and had left off settlement talks (possibly because they weren't satisfied with what GW was offering).
If that were the case, then this action freezing the assets of CHS could have been a attempt to strong-arm CHS back into settlement talks.
I'm totally inferring this here. The legal expert types can tell me if those are reasonable interpretations or not.
And that's all one can do, really.
Suffice it to say that the information indicates A) that settlement negotiations had ceased some time prior to now and B) the parties have now re-opened settlement negotiations afterGW's notice to discover assets. Them's the facts.
I have very little legal training but I have a question for the legal types around here. Why doesn't CH just go straight to the appeal trial? With pro bono representation would it not be better to go just get your day in court so to speak then sit around for GW to pull all of this crap?
Why bother with all of these "talks" and waiting. Clearly GW wants the company dead so I doubt there would be any point in talking. Can't CH say they want a court date and duke it out in court instead of all of this BS?
How is it to CH advantage to sit around instead of getting the trial started?
MrFlutterPie wrote: I have very little legal training but I have a question for the legal types around here. Why doesn't CH just go straight to the appeal trial? With pro bono representation would it not be better to go just get your day in court so to speak then sit around for GW to pull all of this crap?
Why bother with all of these "talks" and waiting. Clearly GW wants the company dead so I doubt there would be any point in talking. Can't CH say they want a court date and duke it out in court instead of all of this BS?
How is it to CH advantage to sit around instead of getting the trial started?
Most courts have rules which require parties to go through mediation of some form both before trial and before appeal. The idea is to help keep the dockets clear of court cases that might be misunderstandings, hot tempers or other issues that can be dealt with in that way. When the goal is to crush your opponent, and the other goal is to survive...there is little room for compromise.
Sinful Hero wrote: Sure was nice of GW to allow Nick to buy a ticket to appear in court.
Why are they not seperating his assets between his personal and business? Probably because he just put it all in the same account?
Depending on how he registered his business, the law might not recognize the difference between CHS and Nick. He is likely a Sole Proprietership.
And buying a plane ticket to appear in court is definitely something that should be paid for by the business and not his personal assets.
Except in the court filings it shows CH as a LLC. And since they're filing against the LLC and the LLC had to purchase the ticket...
It has been alluded to already, but "piercing the veil" is an issue which most small business owners end up doing - either carelessly, out of ignorance or just bad paperwork.
If (as is often the case) this has happened - GW's lawyers may be going after that in order to move beyond what limited assets are held by the LLC (molds, masters, whatever casting equipment Nick might have) and going after his house, retirement funds, cars and the like. It is surprisingly easy to loose the protections of your LLC - and because the rules are rather complicated...and much more boring than making miniatures...many people who don't have a background, are not fully informed on what they must do in order to keep their personal assets separate from those of the corporation.
Not sure what Nick's background is - but based off from discussions I have had with many small business owners, lawyers, tax accountants and the like...a very small portion of LLCs would actually stand up to an aggressive attempt to break down the wall. I myself was taught that lesson by a friendly IRS audit many years ago...from what we have seen of GW's lawyers - I would guess that they are probably looking as closely as those nice IRS agents did for me.
jonolikespie wrote: Well this whole situation feels an awful lot like opening negotiations by pointing a gun at the person across from you.
GW is Greedo and CHS is Han...
On topic, this is pretty much my first thought upon reading that but now Nick doesn't get to do business until November, wow. I find it hard to believe that his attorneys are ok with this (much less himself). The stall tactics have to end at some point but it appears the court is more than happy for the large corporation to drag the small business along for however long they feel like.
jonolikespie wrote: Well this whole situation feels an awful lot like opening negotiations by pointing a gun at the person across from you.
GW is Greedo and CHS is Han...
On topic, this is pretty much my first thought upon reading that but now Nick doesn't get to do business until November, wow. I find it hard to believe that his attorneys are ok with this (much less himself). The stall tactics have to end at some point but it appears the court is more than happy for the large corporation to drag the small business along for however long they feel like.
Seems to me that the system works to prevent people using their right to appeal. You can try pursue your right to appeal but as the opposition can lock all your assets down to prevent you paying the bills or operating the company for as long at they wish to drag their feet, you are at their mercy. I fail to see what is just about this, it's wide open to abuse. Anyone, like Nick, trying to appeal can see themselves locked down and unable to pay their bills to live. That's coercion to pay the settlement rather than be allowed use your right to appeal a court decision. No doubt it'll still go GW's way though, they seem to see very little consequence for trying to waste time and mislead the court in the various ways they have throughout this case.
There are mechanisms in place to prevent having your assets frozen:
1) Pay what you owe.
2) Post a supersedeas bond.
3) Request a stay or lower bond.
All steps that CHS could have but did not take. Now there might be reasons for that - CHS might not have the money to pay or post a bond. Legal counsel may have advised that obtaining a stay or lower bond would be impossible. But it is hardly surprising that the courts allow a judgment creditor to freeze assets and haul a debtor to court to provide a detailed accounting of those assets.
On the flip side, if I were in CHS's shoes and had 25k on hand, and felt like being an donkey-cave, I'd force GW to pay its lawyers to do a discovery and file some motions before I paid them. Make them burn a couple grand on legal fees. But I'm a jerk and being served over christmas would have ticked me off.
Depending on whether a cost award was likely of course, and how much business I'd miss out on over the couple of weeks before the discovery.
Not saying that is what is going on. But its one of the reasons post-judgment interest exists.
czakk wrote: There are mechanisms in place to prevent having your assets frozen:
1) Pay what you owe.
2) Post a supersedeas bond.
3) Request a stay or lower bond.
All steps that CHS could have but did not take. Now there might be reasons for that - CHS might not have the money to pay or post a bond. Legal counsel may have advised that obtaining a stay or lower bond would be impossible. But it is hardly surprising that the courts allow a judgment creditor to freeze assets and haul a debtor to court to provide a detailed accounting of those assets.
On the flip side, if I were in CHS's shoes and had 25k on hand, and felt like being an donkey-cave, I'd force GW to pay its lawyers to do a discovery and file some motions before I paid them. Make them burn a couple grand on legal fees. But I'm a jerk and being served over christmas would have ticked me off.
Depending on whether a cost award was likely of course, and how much business I'd miss out on over the couple of weeks before the discovery.
Not saying that is what is going on. But its one of the reasons post-judgment interest exists.
If CHS could have requested a stay then why didn't they? If the judicial system allows all those "simple" solutions, how are CHS's assets still frozen after all this time?
And its not surprising to you that a court basically allows a company to become bankrupt through an inability to trade because of a judgement that hasn't even made it past the appeals process yet?
That is a great justice system that you guys have going there.
This may slightly be at a tangent but how was Alan Merritt employed in the role of head of IP (or whatever) within GW?
This case has shown he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. On his watch it has been shown that GW don't own what they think they own. AND this case. for GW, was supposed to be open and shut and is now 4 years on with GW only slightly closer to their goal.
Mr. Burning wrote: This may slightly be at a tangent but how was Alan Merritt employed in the role of head of IP (or whatever) within GW?
This case has shown he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. On his watch it has been shown that GW don't own what they think they own. AND this case. for GW, was supposed to be open and shut and is now 4 years on with GW only slightly closer to their goal.
Mr. Burning wrote: This may slightly be at a tangent but how was Alan Merritt employed in the role of head of IP (or whatever) within GW?
This case has shown he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. On his watch it has been shown that GW don't own what they think they own. AND this case. for GW, was supposed to be open and shut and is now 4 years on with GW only slightly closer to their goal.
He's been at the company a long time, before Kirby I think, maybe the longest serving staff still there. Maybe he got it as it seemed something he should have after working his way up, there may never have been an appreciation of what it may entail. GW isn't that big a company, they probably can't attract or afford the sort of experience required to run their legal department in the 'proactive' manner they wish. As it turns out, it is being shown their bark was a lot more effective than their bite. That might not help CHS in the long run but it's of interest to everyone else.
It also has to be repeated that the majority of claims by GW were dropped or thrown out. CHS may have infringed in places but how is anyone to know where the line really is? GW are dishonest and prove repeatedly to claim ownership of far more than they do.
Mr. Burning wrote: This may slightly be at a tangent but how was Alan Merritt employed in the role of head of IP (or whatever) within GW?
This case has shown he doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. On his watch it has been shown that GW don't own what they think they own. AND this case. for GW, was supposed to be open and shut and is now 4 years on with GW only slightly closer to their goal.
Alan Merrett was, and is, "Director of Intellectual Property" and head of the "Intellectual Property Protection Group." He started casting miniatures for GW and oozed his way up the corporate ladder.
Its kind of hard to tell who in the wrong anymore when both sides have made some glaring mistakes.
The initial verdict (which of course is subject to amendment due to appeals) showed that both sides were in the wrong when it came to certain actions.
Concluding that that means that both sides were equally wrong is not reasoning honestly. "Wrong" doesn't have to be a black/white proposition is this trial.
Its kind of hard to tell who in the wrong anymore when both sides have made some glaring mistakes.
The initial verdict (which of course is subject to amendment due to appeals) showed that both sides were in the wrong when it came to certain actions.
Concluding that that means that both sides were equally wrong is not reasoning honestly. "Wrong" doesn't have to be a black/white proposition is this trial.
....
Especially when some of the things that one side were deemed to be "wrong" about in court have been viewed as suspect by a large number of people and are currently being appealed.
Freezing CHS assets was an unnecessary move on GW's part since CHS' assets and sales records were already a matter of record with the court and CHS' cash on hand exceeds what's owed. Unless there is something we aren't aware of this fact makes it clear its a purely malicious move.
I am curious what Judge signed off on an asset freeze as its usually only done when the requesting party can show that the defendent is likely to attempt to dissipate funds or move them out of the courts reach. Also on a Federal level these types of freezes are generally to prevent the sale of non-liquid assets to preserve the defendants equity and is generally outside a lower courts authority when the only remedy being sought is monetary damages.
weeble1000 wrote: The hearing on the 23rd has been postponed until November 11th. Apparently the asset freeze was a precursor to reopening settlement negotiations.
JOINT MOTION TO RESET CITATION PROCEEDING
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited (“GW”) and Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”) jointly state as follows:
1. On September 17, 2014, GW filed a Citation to Discover Assets against Chapterhouse.
The Citation commanded that Chapterhouse appear in this court October 14, 2014, at
9:30 a.m.
2. On October 8, 2014, GW and Chapterhouse agreed to postpone the Citation proceeding
to Thursday, October 23.
3. The parties have since reopened settlement negotiations. In order to provide additional
time for these negotiations, GW and Chapterhouse jointly agree to reset the Citation
proceeding for November 11, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.
Well, that's certainly interesting. I don't understand how settlement negotiations had previously ceased, though, without the case moving forward in lieu of them happening (since I thought that's what this long delay we've been in was for, and the only reason appeals weren't moving forward).
Hopefully, we'll find out this week if CHS is able to get the assets unfrozen... and then I guess we'll be waiting until November 11th for further developments.
Agreed, it must be recent because the link still appears on a Google search, but when clicked on just takes me to my own FB page. FB search shows no results.
I do hope it isn't the case, but I fear Nick may have caved and walked away from the appeal.
Azreal13 wrote: Agreed, it must be recent because the link still appears on a Google search, but when clicked on just takes me to my own FB page. FB search shows no results.
I do hope it isn't the case, but I fear Nick may have caved and walked away from the appeal.
So say for arguments sake Nick did "cave" and walk away, which I assume would be the end of CHS, at least in it's current form or incarnation.
Would that mean GW automatically wins their appeal and the items CHS initially won on would be reversed? Or would the decision made on just the items CHS was appealing remain?
It doesn't make much sense for him to walk away over a 25k judgement which is all that GW has against him. That and the quality of pro-bono counsel backing him and looking to get a decision that sets legal precedent....
RivenSkull wrote: i really hope Chapterhouse isn't dead. I really want this to reach appeals.
Hell, if it's around $23k, I'd put in for a fund raiser and help to pay for it if it meant keeping CHS alive.
At this point, I would too. Even just to spite GW.
Back on topic, is it at all possible that the CH Facebook page going down/being taken down would have to do with CH assets being frozen as opposed to something worse? Like the website, they can't spend money to maintain it or something stupid like that?
No, Facebook pages are free to run, and he's been able to update that since the assets were frozen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: It doesn't make much sense for him to walk away over a 25k judgement which is all that GW has against him. That and the quality of pro-bono counsel backing him and looking to get a decision that sets legal precedent....
It makes perfect sense if he's at financial breaking point and needs to feed his family or not get evicted.
Azreal13 wrote: No, Facebook pages are free to run, and he's been able to update that since the assets were frozen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
agnosto wrote: It doesn't make much sense for him to walk away over a 25k judgement which is all that GW has against him. That and the quality of pro-bono counsel backing him and looking to get a decision that sets legal precedent....
It makes perfect sense if he's at financial breaking point and needs to feed his family or not get evicted.
Not really if his sole source of income was the business and he shuts the business down. I wonder if it's possible for GW to petition FB to take his page down because what he posted put them in a negative light...
RivenSkull wrote: i really hope Chapterhouse isn't dead. I really want this to reach appeals.
Hell, if it's around $23k, I'd put in for a fund raiser and help to pay for it if it meant keeping CHS alive.
At this point, I would too. Even just to spite GW.
Back on topic, is it at all possible that the CH Facebook page going down/being taken down would have to do with CH assets being frozen as opposed to something worse? Like the website, they can't spend money to maintain it or something stupid like that?
I'd kick a $100 or so in, maybe more if there was some eventual store credit of some sort offered once everything's over.
Assuming that the firms representing him isn't doing it entirely out of the goodness of their hearts, but for other reason, I wonder if they could temporarily "hire" Nick and give him an expense account (to keep him going).
.
