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.

90% of us Brits are probably drunks in the eyes of our American friends

That's because they are all pissed and seeing double.
ergo only 45% of Brits are drunks

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:

90% of us Brits are probably drunks in the eyes of our American friends

That's because they are all pissed and seeing double.
ergo only 45% of Brits are drunks

It's an inherited trait.

lol
It's what kicked off the Boston Tea Party
Nothing to do with custom duties, it was the immense disappointment of finding only tea and no booze on board the ships!

Not for nothing do Space Marines™ refer to each other as "bottle brothers".

ironicsilence wrote:I suspect the reason the previous thread was closed because there is no real debate going on here. There are a handful of decent posts followed by lots of internet rage. People sure do get worked up over little toy soldiers

You raise a very good point.

<broadcast mode active: next negative post in this thread results in thread termination, and potential forum sanctions>

Having taken Media Law courses, I have a few points to make.

Wall of text, but so is everything legal-related.

Case Examples
Its not just the models. Its the names. Yes, Games Workshop DOES own names and can have control over that.

Example would be, Star Wars! You guys see light-swords ALL the time in any cheap store... but they are always "Energy Blade" "Light Sword" "Force Sword" etc - never "Light Saber" (and made/sold in a copyright respecting country. In other words, not China.) Light Saber is an owned trademark of George Lucas. Even if the product looks EXACTLY like Luke Skywalker's Light Saber, George wouldn't have much of a case as "energy swords" are not a domain specifically controlled by him. By all means he would have a case to make to shut down all use of "beam swords" - but so would Gundam. Or other older anime or science fiction sources. It gets messy from here on in.

Storm Troopers are not owned by George Lucas. The term that is applicable to any troop type that fits that description. There are Imperial Storm Troopers from Star Wars, and then Imperial Guard Storm Troopers from 40k. There were Imperial Storm Troopers per-se for Imperial Japan in WW2. It is a blanket term applied to a 'unit' type. If I were to make a Sci-Fi game(that isn't a condoned fan-game), call my troopers Imperial Storm Troopers, put them in white space armor. Lucas might have a case. If I put them in white space armor that explicitly looks like a Star Wars Storm Trooper, then I better have a good lawyer handy.


In context to this case.
The same applies here with Games Workshop. Lets use the Tervigon for best example.

GW Tyranid Codex has the term, description, and explanation as to what the Tervigon is. Its a copyrighted, published, mass produced work that they make and sell for a profit. It isn't something they have hidden, unreleased in their desks. The concept of a space bug isn't owned by GW. A breeding space bug isn't their concept. A Tervigon breeding bug for Tyranids, who happen to be space bugs, IS Games Workshop content. Specifically marketing as that, is infringing on GW's IP.

If they named it "Space Breeder Bug" that just happens to fit a certain Carnifex model... even marketed as a "Space Breeder Monster Bug Conversion Kit - Compadible with Sci-fi bug models after some minor conversion work." There may be some raised brows, but GW could not make a good case. Especially if they do not show it with Carnifex model in their pictures.



Content is owned by GW
GW can and does own the content within their rule books. They can not own a common concept, but they can own a unique or product specific title. They just need to prove prior use of it... and the Codex should be plenty. GW had it first. GW has it in a sold medium, the codex, with physical proof that the date/name/concept predates Chapter house's use of it. The model-bits aren't the issue, the naming is.

Games Workshop will not "lose" their model's name or rules. As they own the actual IP title and the rules. Depending on a court ruling, or pretending CH went after them... CH could only 'hurt' GW if GW copied their conversion bits blow for blow... which I assure you likely will not be the case.

Similar Products with Actual Names
In the case of "GW Similar" models like the Eldar units? Title change, problem fixed. Any icons that GW owns rights to would be removed in a court order, if GW won a case...but it certainly would not hurt GW.

In fact, GW producing and releasing models of it's own would HELP its case. In a weird world where CH did sue them for releasing the models the rumors say aren't coming out due to a lawsuit... CH could not win that case unless the court was snorting cocaine the entire procession while simultaneously looking up their own eye of terror.

My skills really exist on the media side of things, and I don't know UK Laws...or how it applies to physical medium. Its been years since I had to pull on my knowledge too, so I could be wrong.

All of this is IMHO with rusty-legal-joints.

The problem with GW not releasing models for units in books is as follows:
They did not create models for some of the best units that Space Wolves, Tyranids, and Eldar have.
If they had chosen not to release the Pyrovore or new plastic Wraithlord no one would care.
Instead, they didn't create models for the Doom of Malan'tai, Tervigon, Seer Council on Jetbikes, and Thunderwolves. Which are each among the best units in their respective codices.
GW does the playtesting. At some point during that process they should be able to make an educated guess that pyrovores are awful and Tervigons are good. In light of that educated guess you would think that they would attempt to quickly release the tervigon because: A) It's good. B)It fits the theme of the army C) They intentionally included rules to allow you to field 5 of them in the Codex.
A similar arguement can be made for Thunderwolves. I own a lot of Thunderwolves. The first one I ever bought was Canis. My intention at the time (the codex had just been released) was to convert the Canis model and make a squad out of them. Once I opened the box that dream was shot. For those of you that have never seen an unassembled/painted Canis model, it is the LEAST convertable model that I've ever owned. Look at the beard going down the front of the armor mixed with the cloak affixed to the armor and the wolf. That's all one solid piece. It would be a monumental challenge to make a squad out of the Canis model.

There sure are a lot of people who seem to think this discussion isn't worth having for whatever reason, and an awful lot of rulebreakers doing their damned best to make that a reality and get the thread locked. I'm really enjoying reading this, if for nothing else then for Aga's graceful and poetic vitriol, and would hope that law be brought to the lawless, and them alone. Locking the thread because of a few clowns is kind of a win for them.

I have to say that the whole CHS lawsuit has really surprised me in that GWS doesn't run anywhere near as tight a ship as I thought they did. Their failure to bring a proper lawsuit seems reasonably evident to even a layperson. In light of some of their past fiascos and self-inflicted wounds, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising their legal department is as inept as their marketing department, but nonetheless I expected better.

I must say that I'm also surprise they don't own a concept until there is a model released. What if the concept in question is depicted visually in the codex? If they had a drawing of a Tervigon, would it have locked down their rights then?

Ouze wrote:I must say that I'm also surprise they don't own a concept until there is a model released. What if the concept in question is depicted visually in the codex? If they had a drawing of a Tervigon, would it have locked down their rights then?

I think this was discussed in the Chapterhouse lawsuit thread.

The answer is a firm "maybe."

Thanks for brushing aside any grey areas and making it crystal clear Biccat!

There was me thinking it was just my poor memory
Was trying desperately hard to remember what was said on the other thread!

Ouze wrote:I must say that I'm also surprise they don't own a concept until there is a model released. What if the concept in question is depicted visually in the codex? If they had a drawing of a Tervigon, would it have locked down their rights then?

If you go back to the original 45+ page thread, you can find some discussion of copyright across mediums of expression.

Basically, a written description is not a picture is not a sculpture. It is MUCH harder (although not always impossible) to use the copyright on a picture to argue infringement by a sculpture.

JoeyFox wrote:In context to this case.
The same applies here with Games Workshop. Lets use the Tervigon for best example.

GW Tyranid Codex has the term, description, and explanation as to what the Tervigon is. Its a copyrighted, published, mass produced work that they make and sell for a profit. It isn't something they have hidden, unreleased in their desks. The concept of a space bug isn't owned by GW. A breeding space bug isn't their concept. A Tervigon breeding bug for Tyranids, who happen to be space bugs, IS Games Workshop content. Specifically marketing as that, is infringing on GW's IP.

If they named it "Space Breeder Bug" that just happens to fit a certain Carnifex model... even marketed as a "Space Breeder Monster Bug Conversion Kit - Compadible with Sci-fi bug models after some minor conversion work." There may be some raised brows, but GW could not make a good case. Especially if they do not show it with Carnifex model in their pictures.

You're blending trademark and copyright law a bit in your description.

While the Tyranid Codex is indeed a copyrighted work, it is a very difficult thing to use the copyright on one medium of expression to prevent someone else's implementation of that expression in another medium; GW has not produced a Tervigon sculpture to protect under copyright law.

"Tervigon" might be a trademark. But trademark infringement doesn't give rise to "destroy the moulds" as relief, which is what GW has asked for in this case. At worst, there are some monetary damages available, plus forcing a name change. And as trademarks are used to indicate the origins of goods and/or services, and GW has never produced a Tervigon product, there's room to argue whether it's even a valid trademark.

Ouze wrote:There sure are a lot of people who seem to think this discussion isn't worth having for whatever reason, and an awful lot of rulebreakers doing their damned best to make that a reality and get the thread locked. I'm really enjoying reading this, if for nothing else then for Aga's graceful and poetic vitriol, and would hope that law be brought to the lawless, and them alone. Locking the thread because of a few clowns is kind of a win for them.

I have to say that the whole CHS lawsuit has really surprised me in that GWS doesn't run anywhere near as tight a ship as I thought they did. Their failure to bring a proper lawsuit seems reasonably evident to even a layperson. In light of some of their past fiascos and self-inflicted wounds, I suppose it shouldn't be surprising their legal department is as inept as their marketing department, but nonetheless I expected better.

I must say that I'm also surprise they don't own a concept until there is a model released. What if the concept in question is depicted visually in the codex? If they had a drawing of a Tervigon, would it have locked down their rights then?

I think the largest problem that some posters have with this thread is that a number of ideas that simply don't square with the applicable laws are being bandied about; the bold section above is an example of an incorrect idea (granted, I may be misunderstanding your point given your phraseology).

In the US, IP protection is broken down into 3 major elements: Copyrights, Trademarks and Patents. None of these are able to cover pure "concepts"* (we'll skip things like business method patents, which are both very complicated and wholly irrelevant to the discussion). The issue here (as opposed to the more general thread on the lawsuit) is a matter of copyright... and it just doesn't seem to make sense.

When I said earlier that this was "an almost insulting evaluation of the competence of GW's attorneys", I meant that, as this entire discussion seemed to be based around the idea that GW's attorneys are in a panic about issues that no rational or competent attorney (in the US) would worry about.

To take but one example:
"Thunderwolves might not be released at all."

Why? What conceivable impact could the CHS lawsuit have on any planned release of thunderwolf cavalry? At this point in time, let us be clear, GW cannot prevent other companies from making riding wolves or wolf cavalry generally. This is entirely independent of the outcome of the CHS lawsuit. Linking the CHS suit to a plan to never release thunderwolf cavalry simply does not follow.

The problem with the original rumors is not the level of intoxication, but the level of credulity: StraightSilver was essentially given a list of actions that GW will take or refrain from taking and told "this is because of the CHS suit"... but none of it makes sense.

*17 USC SS 102(b): "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work." Emphasis added.

Janthkin wrote:
"Tervigon" might be a trademark. But trademark infringement doesn't give rise to "destroy the moulds" as relief, which is what GW has asked for in this case. At worst, there are some monetary damages available, plus forcing a name change.

It's an age-old aggressive negotiation tactic. Make your opening move something outrageous, and then dilute it down with "concessions" until you reach a "compromise" which roughly what you wanted in the first place.

Backfire wrote:

Janthkin wrote:
"Tervigon" might be a trademark. But trademark infringement doesn't give rise to "destroy the moulds" as relief, which is what GW has asked for in this case. At worst, there are some monetary damages available, plus forcing a name change.

It's an age-old aggressive negotiation tactic. Make your opening move something outrageous, and then dilute it down with "concessions" until you reach a "compromise" which roughly what you wanted in the first place.

Negotiation? Maybe. But there is outrageous (e.g., the RIAA asking for $150,000 per song a teenager downloaded from BitTorrent), and then there is "I'm asking for something as relief that the law does not allow me to receive." This is the latter case.

JoeyFox wrote:
GW Tyranid Codex has the term, description, and explanation as to what the Tervigon is. Its a copyrighted, published, mass produced work that they make and sell for a profit. It isn't something they have hidden, unreleased in their desks. The concept of a space bug isn't owned by GW. A breeding space bug isn't their concept. A Tervigon breeding bug for Tyranids, who happen to be space bugs, IS Games Workshop content. Specifically marketing as that, is infringing on GW's IP.

If they named it "Space Breeder Bug" that just happens to fit a certain Carnifex model... even marketed as a "Space Breeder Monster Bug Conversion Kit - Compadible with Sci-fi bug models after some minor conversion work." There may be some raised brows, but GW could not make a good case. Especially if they do not show it with Carnifex model in their pictures.

Games Workshop does not own the trademark "Tervigon." It is not a registered trademark of Games Workshop and Games Workshop does not market or sell any product under that mark.

As to copyright, Games Workshop has copyrighted a work in which the word "Tervigon" appears with an accompanying written description and artwork. This is the only work related to the 'Tervigon' that Games Workshop has "fixed in a tangible medium of expression." Games Workshop can reasonably expect copyright protection to this -specific- work. What does that mean? Games Workshop has exclusive rights to authorize the following:

"(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4)...to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5)...to display the copyrighted work publicly..." (emphasis added)

Note that US copyright code specifically uses the terms "reproduce," "copy," and "derivative work." In other words, with respect to the copyrighted Codex: Tyranids work, Games Workshop has the right to exclude others from reproducing that work or in some cases (but not all cases) portions of that work.

These are the rights Games Workshop can expect to enjoy from its alleged ownership of the copyrighted Codex: Tyranids work. The question then becomes: how does one determine what is a copy and what is not a copy? For that you must turn to case law. Seminal cases include Peter Pan Fabrics v Weiner and Atari v North American Philips Consumer Electronics. These cases (there are many others to be sure) address the concept of "substantial similarity" and the related concept of the "ordinary observer," as well as the sub related concept of a "more discerning observer."

In the words of wizened copyright authority Bill Patry (check out his blog) substantial similarity is "merely a metaphor for the legal conclusion that plaintiff wins because defendant took too much protectible stuff."

As Patry's succinct explanation suggests, the trier of fact must determine how much stuff is too much. Implicit in this is that yes, a work can be copied when the infringing work does not reproduce 100% of the copyrighted work. One needs such a seemingly illogical calculus in order to avoid would-be infringers circumventing the copyright code by reproducing works with "insignificant" alterations. Yet even so, this calculus stands on fundamentally shaky ground.

First of all, portions of a work may not be protectable. A copyrighted work may contain unprotectable material, such as material relegated to the public domain and thus not protectable under copyright. The trier of fact must then separate that which is protectible from that which is not protectible (as a matter of law) while still considering the work and the accused infringing work within their entire contexts. How is that possible? It is difficult, to be sure, but one would want to A: give the author of a unique work protection over any originality in the unified whole of a work while simultaneously B: avoiding giving the copyright holder indirect control over unprotectable elements. One must protect the the author of the work in the same manner as all other authors are protected, past, present, and future. Or, to put it another way, one must promote artistic expression by protecting unique works without hindering artistic expression by preventing others from creating similarly unique expressions. Thus you find in the US copyright code a convoluted balancing act that ultimately falls into the subjective and bias-riddled minds of triers of fact. What influence does the legal process itself long before it ever comes before the trier of fact have on the perceptions of the trier?

Again, Patry makes some salient observations:

"Should such copyright determinations take into account social science research into how people perceive simlarities and dissimilarities? Do people generally perceive similarities more readily or dissimilarities? Are people influenced by how long they look at the items? What if they are told to focus on or not to focus on certain things? Are there some types of similarities/dissimilarities that people perceive more easily than others? And, finally (or first) what does it mean to even say something is "similar"?"

As it stands now, what often prevails in court is the fabulously imprecise and questionably bias-driven Potter Stewart obscenity test: "I know it when I see it;" a legal byword for a standard that's so vague as to be useless to any person other than Potter Stewart.

Is it a copy? It looks like a copy to me, but you are not me, and I am not you, and we are not him. And without a clearly applicable objective standard how do you sort out which of our perceptions should prevail?

One shouldn't wonder why copyright infringement cases almost never go to trial.

I don't see it as either outrageous or outside of the law. One way to have no more copies made of something is to have the molds destroyed. I found it amusing how many armorcast titans were found in a basement 'from the original print run' when apoc hit.)

weeble1000 wrote:These are the rights Games Workshop can expect to enjoy from its alleged ownership of the copyrighted Codex: Tyranids work.

Are you implying GW doesn't own the Tyranid 'dex?

mikhaila wrote:I don't see it as either outrageous or outside of the law. One way to have no more copies made of something is to have the molds destroyed. I found it amusing how many armorcast titans were found in a basement 'from the original print run' when apoc hit.)

Context, mikahaila! The legal relief for copyright infringement allows the copyright holder to request destruction of copies (and the means to make copies). The legal remedies available for trademark infringement simply don't allow for destruction of the molds.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:These are the rights Games Workshop can expect to enjoy from its alleged ownership of the copyrighted Codex: Tyranids work.

Are you implying GW doesn't own the Tyranid 'dex?

This goes back to the original thread again - one of the requirements for stating a case of copyright infringement is to prove ownership of the asserted copyright. GW has yet to do this.

KilroyKiljoy wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:These are the rights Games Workshop can expect to enjoy from its alleged ownership of the copyrighted Codex: Tyranids work.

Are you implying GW doesn't own the Tyranid 'dex?

I'm saying it should not be taken at face value. Who wrote portions of the text? Which artists created the visual works included in the text? Were they working for Games Workshop at the time of creation? Did they license the works to Games Workshop? Have the copyrights been vacated or abandoned? Those are all important questions. In all likely probability Games Workshop can prove ownership of the copyright(s), but that is a fact that must be demonstrated by the Plaintiff. This is all I was suggesting with the italicized word "alleged." In the limited context of Games Workshop theoretically asserting the Codex: Tyranids work against an unspecified work Games Workshop's ownership of the copyright would need to be established and could not be taken for granted as a matter of law.

Janthkin wrote:This goes back to the original thread again - one of the requirements for stating a case of copyright infringement is to prove ownership of the asserted copyright. GW has yet to do this.

Am I the only one who owns a Tyranid codex with page 96?

Patent Law says you can patent an Idea.

Have they patented anything? No.

I think they may have patented some shoes.
Mark Wells and Co seem to talk a load of cobblers when putting a gloss on things.

Does that count?

Buzzsaw wrote:When I said earlier that this was "an almost insulting evaluation of the competence of GW's attorneys", I meant that, as this entire discussion seemed to be based around the idea that GW's attorneys are in a panic about issues that no rational or competent attorney (in the US) would worry about.

To take but one example:
"Thunderwolves might not be released at all."

Why? What conceivable impact could the CHS lawsuit have on any planned release of thunderwolf cavalry? At this point in time, let us be clear, GW cannot prevent other companies from making riding wolves or wolf cavalry generally. This is entirely independent of the outcome of the CHS lawsuit. Linking the CHS suit to a plan to never release thunderwolf cavalry simply does not follow.

The problem with the original rumors is not the level of intoxication, but the level of credulity: StraightSilver was essentially given a list of actions that GW will take or refrain from taking and told "this is because of the CHS suit"... but none of it makes sense.

Well, this is what I think, happened:

1.) GW hires a lawyer for all its legal issues. He is not an IP specialist, not even for UK law (interesting to see why he was hired, maybe a friend of someone, maybe a gamer). His IP job consists of the legal text on the GW website (implying the IP ownership on a.o. every name and race ever mentioned in a GW book including the words dwarf, elf, human etc, evidence of unfamiliarity of IP law and a kind of omnipotency fantasy) and writing aggressive C&D letters to small companies. For a long time this worked, as everybody bowed to the mighty GW.

2.) Chapterhouse was aware of GW legal, asked a lawyer if GW could sue them for their product range and the lawyer said no. Chapterhouse said on their website that legally they are on the save side, making them bolder than other companies. GW legal couldn't believe this and hired a US lawfirm to file a suit against Chapterhouse.

3.) There could be different explanations, why the US lawyers representing GW act so incompetently in this case. Either the US lawyers ARE incompetent themselves (as indicated by: accusing an obviously wrong sculptor, not meeting standard requirements for even filing such a case) or they get hobbled by unrealistic and aggressive demands by their customer and try to save the case by "obscure and delay" tactics that don't make sense for a layman expecting a clear case, esp. the "hang the parasite" fraction of laymen .

4.) GW now realises that IP law is more complicated than their omnipotency dreams made them believe. They are now in a kind of panic and confusion. They have a job opening for an IP lawyer (fact), indicating that they realise not having enough expertise in that area. They try to cut all channels from the developer team to the rest of the world (the famous new secrecy policy) so that no concept is leaked until a model is ready. This includes no more previews and long preorders, WD policy and no more future seminars on GD. They put on hold everything that can't be released in one wave (Sororitas? , would explain the panic WD Codex few people forsaw) or has been released by others, until they get a grip on what the is going on. The restrictive regime started a bit earlier but became extreme just after the start of the Chapterhouse lawsuit.

So while formally the Chapterhouse lawsuit doesn't decide on GW's right to make a thunderwolf model (Chapterhouse doesn't make thunderwolves BTW, but almost everybody else does ), it is the trigger for GW's current state of panic/paranoia and set of irrational decisions.

Just for clarification: If I speak of GW in this context, I am talking about GW's higher management in cooperation with GW legal. The design team is trying to do their job as well as in the past, as much as the restrictive regime allows. But firing open minds like Rick Priestley, cutting most feedback loops and open exchange with the customer and non-GW-collegues leads to less motivation, less inspiration and less effectiveness of their work. The design team does a tremendous job (well, most of them ), but they are caught in a repressive system they can't change from within, they can just stay or leave.

This is how I see this development based on the few information that we have. But it would explain GW's behavior and I see no contradicting facts. That's why I wanted a public discussion of these rumours.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Have they patented anything? No.

Simply because I was curious (patent for an injection molding method). But no, they haven't patented anything about the game system.

Kroothawk wrote:1.) GW hires a lawyer for all its legal issues. He is not an IP specialist, not even for UK law (interesting to see why he was hired, maybe a friend of someone, maybe a gamer). His IP job consists of the legal text on the GW website (implying the IP ownership on a.o. every name and race ever mentioned in a GW book including the words dwarf, elf, human etc, evidence of unfamiliarity of IP law and a kind of omnipotency fantasy) and writing aggressive C&D letters to small companies. For a long time this worked, as everybody bowed to the mighty GW.

Often the job of an in-house attorney isn't to be an expert in all areas of law but rather to manage outside counsel on a variety of issues that may arise. GW doesn't only deal in IP, they have other legal issues that arise - import/export laws, employment laws, contract law, just to name a few. GW likely hires different law firms to deal with these issues and uses their lawyer to coordinate and manage the work.

While I'm not sure, I'd be willing to bet that those C&D letters didn't come from GW Legal, they probably came from some outside firm.

But I agree otherwise, for some reason GW's case does not appear to be as good as they would want it to be. I'm not suggesting that they're incompetent, maybe they've got some brilliant strategy that simply isn't immediately apparent. A cunning plan if you will.

Kroothawk wrote:
4.) GW now realises that IP law is more complicated than their omnipotency dreams made them believe. They are now in a kind of panic and confusion. They have a job opening for an IP lawyer (fact), indicating that they realise not having enough expertise in that area.

Or they could just have fired a previous guy after finding out how poorly things have been managed in the IP arena.

@ Kroothawk: That pretty much sums up my understanding of what has happened, only you have managed to make it much more succinct and explained it better than I did.

I got the impression that GW has pulled up its drawbridge and is waiting to see what the outcome will be.

I didn't say that GW wouldn't release some models, just that they may have been advised to hold back some that may or may not be related to this case until they can get some better understanding of their position. It may well be that they are waiting for their new IP lawyer to start.

biccat wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:Have they patented anything? No.

Simply because I was curious (patent for an injection molding method). But no, they haven't patented anything about the game system.

That's because the can't. I'm not sure If I recall exactly, but I thought I read way back when the CHS thing started that you can't even protect rules systems in the US.

I was referring to the case at hand as nothing we've discussed could conceivably be covered by patent. I didn't bother to check if they held any , but injections plastic moulding apparatus is an ideal thing for a patent. Patents are powerful things, but they are for novel processes and inventions and simply not applicable to the CHS challenge.

GW's case hangs on copyrights and trademarks... mostly copyrights I imagine because they don't appear to have trademarked that much stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arschbombe wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:
4.) GW now realises that IP law is more complicated than their omnipotency dreams made them believe. They are now in a kind of panic and confusion. They have a job opening for an IP lawyer (fact), indicating that they realise not having enough expertise in that area.

Or they could just have fired a previous guy after finding out how poorly things have been managed in the IP arena.

Wasn't their IP/legal department taken over by a woman who started the assault on websites all over the place?

biccat wrote:But I agree otherwise, for some reason GW's case does not appear to be as good as they would want it to be. I'm not suggesting that they're incompetent, maybe they've got some brilliant strategy that simply isn't immediately apparent. A cunning plan if you will.

In the immortal words of Baldrick:

Is it as cunning as a fox what used to be Professor of Cunning at Oxford University but has moved on, and is now working for the UN at the High Commission of International Cunning Planning?

BTW StraightSilver posted this over at BoLS:

ooooh I really wish I hadn't started this now.

I would just like to say that my original comments were made in a thread on DakkaDakka in the news and rumours section, so it is just a rumour and not fact, but it is from a credible source, but I won't say who.

My concern is that it may have all got a bit out of hand on Dakka so I hope it doesn't cause too many ripples, or get anybody into trouble.

It is quite possible that it is all nonsense, I was simply passing on bits of a conversation that I had with an old colleague recently. I cannot state with certainty that it's true, that's why it's a rumour, but I wanted to pass it on to the community, but am now wishing I hadn't.

It was never intended to be a dig at Chapterhouse despite coming across that way, I just wanted people to be aware that there are wider implications at stake regarding the current lawsuit.

And I believe I said that it wasn't the case that GW wouldn't release some minis, just that they had been advised to hold them back on advice from their legal team.

I would also like to say that I am very fortunate to have had a long relationship with GW and still have good friends that work for the company, which means that I may come across as a bit biassed. However I don't fully support all of GW's decisions, but don't want to endanger my relationship with anyone in the company, or more importantly lose anybody their job.

What I will say though is that GW has a policy of not giving interviews, and not commenting on internet forums.

I think this is a mistake, but I can see why they do it.

The only version of events anybody has heard regarding the lawsuit is Nick from Chapterhouse', we have not heard GW's version.

I wanted to maybe put across some of the strong feeling that is felt by many of GW's design staff regarding the whole thing, but I think maybe now that may have been a mistake, so I won't comment any further.

AFAIK though the 3rd party companies didn't actually release them as "Dark Eldar Grotesques" (could be wrong on that one).

CHS released a Tervigon model and were going to release a Doom of Malantai model but decided not to once it went to court.

The Tervigon is the crux of my comments as under US copyright law there was a legal challenge over who owned the copyright and until that was resolved GW were advised to hold back their version.

This then brought into question just how much of its own IP does GW own, and so they looked at what other unreleased models were covered by other companies.

Thunderwolves may not be an issue as I don't believe any 3rd party company calls them Thunderwolves but they are one of the models that was allegedly put on the back burner for the time being.

GW's way around this is to release WD Codex additions that will allow them to release their models without actually citing their original name. So a Tervigon kit can be released bundled with something else, so that it isn't marketed as a Tervigon as such.

As I say it may well be a conspiracy theory, it isn't necesserally my theory, I was just passing on a rumour from someone I know who works for GW. This wasn't a retail staffer but somebody with close ties to the design studio and 'Evy Metal so thought they were pretty reliable.

But it was just a rumour, so please don't shoot the messenger.

daboarder added this interesting comment to this:

I really don't want to stir the pot, and thank you for sharing this with us. But US copyright law is not applicable to this situation for the simple reason that GW is a listed UK company as such their IP is a UK IP and all breaches of said IP are subject to UK legal jurisdiction. regardless of chapterhouses location the "damage" so to speak is being done in the UK. what it may be is that the legal team has advised that certain kits are put on hold untill an outcome is reached to prevent them releasing a kit that looks like a tervigon and is similar enough to the CHS one that it could potentially open them up to counter legalities if they were to loose this case, as such it would be legaly advisable to withold produciton of said kit until the case has be finished. also means that they'll get a greater damages pay out i they win.

And some more quotes:

StraightSilver wrote:You see Nick that's the problem though, GW won't ever comment on this so we will never get an official answer or response from them, neither would they ever comment on an internet forum.

So we only ever get the Chaptehouse point of view.

I am not for one minute saying that you are not telling the truth, but that if I am biased so are you.

And as for being anonymous, there's no great secret in that, I am quite well known within the 40K community under the name StraightSilver so I'm not that anonymous.

Of course I cannot and will not name my source as he could lose his job over it, but I will say that through him I am able to guage the opinion of some very well known GW designers and writers and the feeling from their point of view is that this whole situation simply should have been avoided.

And if I recall your own news section on your website notified your customers that GW had tried to get you to stop using GW trademarks and you openly defied them.

It's interesting though that since going to court the CHS website has changed considerably and no longer uses GW trademarks so blatantly.

As I say I don't want to enter a flamewar with CHS, and have nothing against the guys personally, but we do only ever hear their version of what's going on so I thought I would try to even the balance.

Admittedly that has kind of back fired so I wish now I hadn't, but that's the internet for you isn't it?

Nick wrote:OK, I will admit to seeing your rumor post as somewhat of an attack (this coupled with your post in warseer made it appear this way). This goes for the other posters as well, I apologize for coming across defensive.

Obviously I cant get into any details about pretty much anything at this time with the case proceeding as it is (slowly I can say). This is frustrating to say the least..

I will say that I have been pretty transparent in the past regarding my decisions, where from the GW side we really have no idea what they are thinking or doing.

In a perfect world, everyone would see what I have seen from the inside regarding the case and the actions of GWs legal team (I think some people have said despicable and underhanded). Do I feel my side is the white knight and correct, yeah I do, and I think the ability of my attorneys to point out why and GWs attorneys inability to support their allegations lead credence to our actions.

In any case, this is the most I have responded in the past few months to the case. I do get RATHER upset when people misquote me though regarding facts. This goes rumored GW attempts to work with us previously and our products names and releases (I think BitsBarn stated we had Ultramarine and Blood Angel named products which we never did because GW marketed those already, IE Trademark and Copyright laws..).

In any case I will get back to getting new kits out to people... Ill have photos of a Imperial Jetbike and rider conversion kit here this week if I stay on schedule.

Nick - Chapterhousestudios.com

StraightSilver wrote:I also never meant to cause any offense, and must admit am probably a little naive when it comes to internet forums.

I never for a minute thought that a comment i made on a thread elsewhere would end up spawning it's own thread elsehwere but in hindsight should have expected that.

I certainly didn't want to create a s*%$storm in the process and apologise for that.

I thought I was simply passing on rumours, as that's what the rumours threads were for, there was certainly nothing malicious in my intentions and I am most definitely not a GW agent spreading a smear campaign as others have stated.

I have also been called a drunk on other forums too, although that bit might be true...

So essentially, this was a rumour I heard, I can't corroborate it as fact because I can't name my source and didn't mean to stir up such a hornet's nest.

However I fail to see why my opinion is any less valid than anybody else', if I could tell you all the facts I would but I can't.

StraightSilver wrote:The best way forward for GW in my opinion would just be to stop using Codexes, problem solved.

If the rules were included with the models then units could be released whenever they wanted, and there would be no problems with gaps in the codex.

A lot of companies use army cards with the rules and stats on them, which would be fine for GW as they use a lot of USRs now.

The reason I suspect they don't do this is due to edition changes. If they boxed stock with the army cards inside and the rules changed they would have to rebox all their old stock.