Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Could GW lawyers be trying to get CH to establish a position that they might contradict in the future.

So CH do not specify their inspirations, then later on when GW specify their claims and CH points to a GW source, their position is undermined. I.e. making CH look less trustworthy?

In such a grey legal area as this, where it appears that opinion seems to hold so much sway this sort of manoeuvring could be advantageous.

Does it work like that? Have I been watching too much Rumpole of the Bailey? Tune in next month for .........The GW vs CH legal deathmatch special!

Rumpole would sort this mess right out, as long as he wasn't having his time purloined by 'she who must be obeyed'.

notprop wrote:So CH do not specify their inspirations, then later on when GW specify their claims and CH points to a GW source, their position is undermined. I.e. making CH look less trustworthy?

Inspiration isn't against the law. It only undermines their position if they point to the piece they're alleged to have copied or something too similar.

It isn't a legal grey area.

The lawyers commenting in this thread have pointed out that Chapter House cannot be expected to defend itself against an accusation of copyright infringement when their accuser cannot name the copyright he claims they have infringed.

True, but I was suggesting that if they commited to a position which they later recounted on it may diminish their standing in the eyes of the judge.

Really I was just trying to put logic into GWs prevarication over actually calling them on something, since I do not suppose that GWs lawyers are fethwits or that GW would persue a legal course without having something solid in mind.

Xelkireth wrote:

Ian Sturrock wrote:Anyone else wondering if GW hire their lawyers the same way they hire their writers?

"Don't worry about consistency, guys, or little errors. This is a beer and pretzels game. If any disputes arise, the players can just roll off, or ask a redshirt. Wow, nice use of washes on your Ultramarines army! You're hired."

Did you see the job requirements for their IP Lawyer job opening? It was posted here quite a while a go. It was fethin' hilarious. Having been in the position to hire and fire employees, the job description/requirements were quite laughable. I could have done a better job at writing stoned.

Must have link!

Oh, here's a great little Q&A that Tabletop Gaming News did a little while ago. In it, the TGN guys ask a lot of questions about Intellectual Property law.

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a legal grey area.

The lawyers commenting in this thread have pointed out that Chapter House cannot be expected to defend itself against an accusation of copyright infringement when their accuser cannot name the copyright he claims they have infringed.

this is a great point

notprop wrote:Could GW lawyers be trying to get CH to establish a position that they might contradict in the future.

So CH do not specify their inspirations, then later on when GW specify their claims and CH points to a GW source, their position is undermined. I.e. making CH look less trustworthy?

In such a grey legal area as this, where it appears that opinion seems to hold so much sway this sort of manoeuvring could be advantageous.

Does it work like that? Have I been watching too much Rumpole of the Bailey? Tune in next month for .........The GW vs CH legal deathmatch special!

I wondered something similar, which is what I was driving at in my earlier posts. GW may well know that some CHS staff own certain GW products (seeing as GW/FW sell them). If CHS's response conflicts with GW's own evidence...

doctorludo wrote:

notprop wrote:Could GW lawyers be trying to get CH to establish a position that they might contradict in the future.

So CH do not specify their inspirations, then later on when GW specify their claims and CH points to a GW source, their position is undermined. I.e. making CH look less trustworthy?

In such a grey legal area as this, where it appears that opinion seems to hold so much sway this sort of manoeuvring could be advantageous.

Does it work like that? Have I been watching too much Rumpole of the Bailey? Tune in next month for .........The GW vs CH legal deathmatch special!

I wondered something similar, which is what I was driving at in my earlier posts. GW may well know that some CHS staff own certain GW products (seeing as GW/FW sell them). If CHS's response conflicts with GW's own evidence...

They haven't denied access to the products.

notprop wrote:True, but I was suggesting that if they commited to a position which they later recounted on it may diminish their standing in the eyes of the judge.

No, GW can't do that. If you want the technical reasons, see above. Or I can elaborate some more if you want.

notprop wrote:Really I was just trying to put logic into GWs prevarication over actually calling them on something, since I do not suppose that GWs lawyers are fethwits or that GW would persue a legal course without having something solid in mind.

Don't underestimate them. They may really have no idea what the hell they're doing. Or, and this is more likely IMO, they didn't look into the issue before filing suit against CH. Then when CH got legal representation, GW realized they were in a fix and they're trying their hardest to preserve their case.

They should have amended the claim initially, or withdrawn the claim, gotten their gak together, and filed a new claim.

biccat wrote:No, GW can't do that. If you want the technical reasons, see above. Or I can elaborate some more if you want.

I'll take a side order of elaboration, biccat, if you don't mind - the explaining of some of the legal issues in plain English (or American) has always been interesting thus far

Still, a lawyer filing a suit against someone else should be able to express within 3-4 months, what exactly the accused did wrong.
Failing to do that is just a sign of incompetence and wasting everybody's time.

Kroothawk wrote:Still, a lawyer filing a suit against someone else should be able to express within 3-4 months, what exactly the accused did wrong.
Failing to do that is just a sign of incompetence and wasting everybody's time.

Or a delaying tactic at best as they figure out how to go from here.

It really does smack of a fishing expedition as a result of, as biccat said, them filing to get CHS to back down and backpedaling as a result of actually having to go forward. Their history of "legal actions" doesn't have a lot(if any) examples of someone actually standing up to them. GW has bullied smaller companies and websites in the past, it's about time someone was able to call their bluff.

Why GW don't just offer a license to companies such as CH I'll never know.

Someone mentioned that if GW loses,more companies will spring up and we'll endup seeing inferior products flooding the market.

It strikes me that GW selling a license to permit these companies to brand their conversion components as 'compatible with:' would a) give them an element of control over those items being released, as they'd have the ability to approve them; b) open further modelling opportunities for us gamers, bringing further cash in for GW through royalties; c) increase peoples faith in GW as a company for doing something sensible and d) a few other good reasons to do it that I can't think of right now.

Forgive me if this can be seen as being slightly off topic, I realise that it's me living in an ideal world again by even suggesting that GW would even follow such a sensible option (my opinion...).

Probably because there's a standard of quality and up-front licensing fee that CH or any of these companies can't meet.

Aye, ah well, back to the realm of the idealist.

Armourcast used to have a license from GW and did lots of quality models. Then GW yanked the license and started Forgeworld to make some of the same models. At least that's how I remember it.
So GW has gone down the licensing path before. Maybe it's learned something or maybe not but, it has given licenses in the past.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Armourcast used to have a license from GW and did lots of quality models. Then GW yanked the license and started Forgeworld to make some of the same models. At least that's how I remember it.
So GW has gone down the licensing path before. Maybe it's learned something or maybe not but, it has given licenses in the past.

It still gives licenses. See Fantasy Flight Games.

They just don't give model licenses anymore(despite the ones given in the past, of which Armorcast was the last).

Weeble, has the docket been updated with today's hearing yet?

Maybe Chapterhouse is not willing to pay a fee for sculpting an arrow

Kanluwen wrote:Probably because there's a standard of quality and up-front licensing fee that CH or any of these companies can't meet.

They've threatened companies making models easily of similar quality to their own, it's not like the Lamassu or the Plague Lord (was it?) that were dropped by different companies due to GW threats were in any way a quality lower than GW.

Kanluwen wrote:Probably because there's a standard of quality

Heh..

Oh wait, you're serious.

Dysartes wrote:

notprop wrote:True, but I was suggesting that if they commited to a position which they later recounted on it may diminish their standing in the eyes of the judge.

biccat wrote:No, GW can't do that. If you want the technical reasons, see above. Or I can elaborate some more if you want.

I'll take a side order of elaboration, biccat, if you don't mind - the explaining of some of the legal issues in plain English (or American) has always been interesting thus far

Sorry for the slow reply. Also, I amended your quote above to include the point I'm referring to, hope you don't mind.

Some quick background information. The plaintiff (GW) has the burden of proving that they have a legal right that the defendant (CH) has infringed.

The first step of doing so is to file a well-pleaded complaint. A well-pleaded complaint is one that reasonably appraises the defendant of the specific acts that led to the suit and what specific rights were violated.

Second, the plaintiff (GW) also has what is called the "burden of production." They must provide sufficient evidence that a finder of fact could find in their favor for the allegations in the complaint. Once they have shown sufficient facts, the burden shifts to the defendant (CH) to rebut those facts. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, CH will be granted summary judgment. If CH fails to rebut these facts, GW will be granted summary judgment.

It both sides satisfy their burden, then the issue goes before the finder of fact (a jury or judge) who must decide if, by a preponderance of the evidence (meaning it is more likely than not), the defendant has infringed the plaintiff's rights.

GW initially filed a complaint without alleging which specific copyrights CH had infringed. By making a general complaint of infringement and asking for CH to point out those copyrights that CH used, GW is trying to shift this burden onto CH. While this may be permitted in certain circumstances where evidence of wrongdoing is solely in the hands of the wrongdoer, in this case GW is well aware of their own copyrights and has no problem with access to CH's goods. Therefore, unless GW makes a well-pleaded complaint, CH is entitled to relief.

GW also bears the burden of production. That is, they must allege specific facts. These facts may be discovered through the discovery process, but must be actual evidence, not simply asking the other side to admit to wrongdoing. Here, GW is asking CH to admit to their wrongdoing, which isn't asking CH for specific facts that CH is in possession of and aren't independently discernable by GW. Note that GW can ask for an admission of wrongdoing or infringment during the discovery process, but this is properly done by a request for admission, not an interrogatory.

Finally, I'm not sure if GW can properly raise the issue of what CH used as reference at this point in the trial because the issue goes to whether CH has a valid defense of independent creation. CH has not yet fully responded to GW's complaint, and has not raised the defense of independent creation. Since this is an affirmative defense, I believe that it has to be raised in CH's response and can't be raised later. I suspect that GW cannot use this early discovery process to preempt future defenses that may be raised by Chapterhouse because the information isn't relevant until that defense is raised by CH.

Some thoughts.

biccat wrote:Finally, I'm not sure if GW can properly raise the issue of what CH used as reference at this point in the trial because the issue goes to whether CH has a valid defense of independent creation. CH has not yet fully responded to GW's complaint, and has not raised the defense of independent creation.

Is there an absolute drop-dead date whereby CH must have this defense raised? IANAL but do find this case fascinating

well,what i know, theyve made their defence already, now its just on the way to discoveries if this keeps up

Biccat I can almost imagine you doing a play by play for court proceedings. Dont know if its just that it concerns our hobby, but you make it interesting. Good job

Chaplaingrabthar: CHS's current position is that they cannot raise a defense unless GW specifies their claims. GW's position is so ludicrously vague.

I'm not sure that the judge is going to make them come up with a defense when the judge hasn't accepted that GW's claim is clear enough to try yet.

chaplaingrabthar wrote:

biccat wrote:Finally, I'm not sure if GW can properly raise the issue of what CH used as reference at this point in the trial because the issue goes to whether CH has a valid defense of independent creation. CH has not yet fully responded to GW's complaint, and has not raised the defense of independent creation.

Is there an absolute drop-dead date whereby CH must have this defense raised? IANAL but do find this case fascinating

It's a defense that (probably) has to be raised in their response. I don't think they've raised it. I also don't know if they will be given a chance to amend their complaint to include the defense after this pre-discovery period. It's just something I don't know a whole heck of a lot about.

However, I think it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they came up with the idea completely without any inspiration whatsoever from GW.

neiltj1 wrote:Biccat I can almost imagine you doing a play by play for court proceedings. Dont know if its just that it concerns our hobby, but you make it interesting. Good job

Thanks! I tend to focus on the easy stuff, see weeble's posts for the more in-depth analysis. He's actually a litigator

However, I think it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they came up with the idea completely without any inspiration whatsoever from GW.

And it doesn't take a genius to see where GW's own inspiration comes from, either. They sure as hell didn't create their world and all the races that populate it completely on their own with no outside influence.

I presume that CH could legitimately claim they did not copy the idea of making a shoulder pad with an arrow on it, because GW haven't made a shoulder pad with an arrow on it for CH to copy. (Substitute a different symbol for Arrow if necessary to make the example work.)

Sidstyler wrote:

However, I think it's a pretty big stretch to claim that they came up with the idea completely without any inspiration whatsoever from GW.

And it doesn't take a genius to see where GW's own inspiration comes from, either. They sure as hell didn't create their world and all the races that populate it completely on their own with no outside influence.

Indeed. This is presumably the reason why Chapterhouse demands that GW clarifies which of GWs copyrights have been violated.
If GW claims to actually own the copyrights to a lot of the stuff they do, they will be in dire straits, as it might be questionable whether that is actually the case (GW having that copyright, that is).

This might also be part of the reason that GW insists on avoiding that very issue.