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.

Biccat - Yea, you're right. In the Recap archive it is listed as buy from pacer. That's odd. When I go through PACER with the recap extension, it lists the document as being available through Recap. I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy.

I started a new thread to discuss the side effects of this lawsuit on GW's future release schedule:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401797.page

Assuming those side effects are even true.

The complexity of any side effects is why I'm sure Kroothawk felt it prudent to have a separate thread just for that topic.

Its a case of... sounds stupid enough to believe GW would do it. I tend to think its more a political play by GW, to make its fan base turn on 3rd party bitz makers for delaying their precious plastic crack.

aka_mythos wrote:The complexity of any side effects is why I'm sure Kroothawk felt it prudent to have a separate thread just for that topic.

Its a case of... sounds stupid enough to believe GW would do it. I tend to think its more a political play by GW, to make its fan base turn on 3rd party bitz makers for delaying their precious plastic crack.

GW can barely get their act together using the internet. They can't advertise and spread information about a product when they need to sell it.

Why does it seem likely that they could implement some Machiavellian plot to turn their customers against 3rd party suppliers through careful rumour-mongering? The conspiracy suggested by some requires the very thing GW prove themselves incapable of time and again.

Let's turn up the drama a notch and assume it's rogue agents within the mighty Workshop operating outside the control of Kirby.

It may not have been a plot... but rather just something one person said to the other just to get that individual fan on GW's side... for the sake of whatever conversation they were having beyond that point.

All this is off topic.

Please discuss the alleged side effects in the thread for discussion of the alleged side effects...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/401797.page

aka_mythos wrote:It may not have been a plot... but rather just something one person said to the other just to get that individual fan on GW's side... for the sake of whatever conversation they were having beyond that point.

This is what is most likely to be the truth, that or a single forum members quest for drama...

Interestingly enough Chapterhouse has its own fans in the GW workforce as well as its detractors (I have heard this from more then one person).

While interesting, that too is off topic.

Chapterhouse wrote:
Interestingly enough Chapterhouse has its own fans in the GW workforce as well as its detractors (I have heard this from more then one person).

Understandable... GW had a very big "DIY"mentality for a while.

A most interesting thread folks. Please keep up the quality posting.

I am assuming that the suit is being driven from Nottingham by GW's UK lawyers. If most of their US IP suits have resulted in roll overs by the defendants, they do not have much actual US courtroom experience. The GWUK lawyers' experience in UK courts may be working to their disadvantage when trying to manage a long distance suit in the US.

The UK legal system and the US legal system are quite different. As an example, there is no Supreme court in the UK. The House of Lords is the "court of highest appeal". From stuff I have seen, the courts seem to be slightly weighed in favor of the big guys which is, perhaps, a leftover from the royalty/peasantry days. Successful lawyers for a fair sized UK corporation may be having a hard time figuring how US courts work, but they do seem to be getting an education through this case.

More UK/US justice system comparison here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/259964/a_comparison_of_british_and_american.html

It seems like this case is being handled very badly. Is this caused by UK lawyers driving the case or by (what appears to be) gross negligence by their US lawyers?

Any UK solicitors reading this thread? Would things have happened differently in a UK courtroom?

Tim

Platuan4th wrote:

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.

The problem with that analysis is that GW is represented by US attorneys in this matter. They're well established and (presumably) know our legal system well.
They would not have the same issues with comprehension as you're referring to.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:The problem with that analysis is that GW is represented by US attorneys in this matter. They're well established and (presumably) know our legal system well.
They would not have the same issues with comprehension as you're referring to.

Eric

Yes, they are represented by US attorneys, but I'm wondering if the overall strategy is being dictated from Nottingham, especially this lack of specifics regarding which items are being infringed and how are they being infringed.
One would think that US lawyers would know that this was not going to fly (to the point of a possible successful motion to dismiss if it is not dealt with soon) and strongly advise their client of this potential sinking of their case.

It just seems that somewhere along the line from Nottingham to the courtroom, someone does not understand the US legal system/courts.

Tim

From stuff I have seen, the courts seem to be slightly weighed in favor of the big guys which is, perhaps, a leftover from the royalty/peasantry days.

No idea but would doubt very much that this is the case. Certainly hope it is not. Although the big guy maybe able to afford better representation.
If the law firm hadn't stepped in Pro Bono to represent CHS then the situation might by now be very different.

AFAIK the history and development of the British and subsequently the US egal system is based on Common Law in matters of civil dispute.
The Crown is represented in matters of Criminal Law

timd wrote:
A most interesting thread folks. Please keep up the quality posting.

I am assuming that the suit is being driven from Nottingham by GW's UK lawyers. If most of their US IP suits have resulted in roll overs by the defendants, they do not have much actual US courtroom experience. The GWUK lawyers' experience in UK courts may be working to their disadvantage when trying to manage a long distance suit in the US.

The UK legal system and the US legal system are quite different. As an example, there is no Supreme court in the UK. The House of Lords is the "court of highest appeal". From stuff I have seen, the courts seem to be slightly weighed in favor of the big guys which is, perhaps, a leftover from the royalty/peasantry days. Successful lawyers for a fair sized UK corporation may be having a hard time figuring how US courts work, but they do seem to be getting an education through this case.

More UK/US justice system comparison here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/259964/a_comparison_of_british_and_american.html

It seems like this case is being handled very badly. Is this caused by UK lawyers driving the case or by (what appears to be) gross negligence by their US lawyers?

Any UK solicitors reading this thread? Would things have happened differently in a UK courtroom?

Tim

I work for a UK-based law firm, and this isn't how things work at all, either in terms of the way the English legal system operates or the way a UK corporation instructs US counsel. The US legal system isn't that different from the UK system in substance; the nomenclature is different, and US attorneys tend to have a more 'in your face' approach, but the dynamics are very similar, as are the tactics. One you get past the jargon, US and UK lawyers usually find they have a lot in common. There is a perception that what happens 'in the courtroom' is decisive, but in civil litigation a lot of the important steps take place outside the courtroom (about 95% of civil claims settle before trial). So you can't assess what's really going on simply from what's publically available.

It's nonsense to suggest that UK courts are biased in favour of the big guys. Large corporations can afford to spend more on their legal teams, but judges regularly rule against powerful plaintiffs in the UK.

Bringing proceedings in a 'foreign' jurisdiction is actually a highly complex process, and will normally involve people from different sides of the business. There will often be UK-based lawyers involved, either advising the company or instructing the US counsel on behalf of the company. It's possible that GW in the US are running this litigation, and simply reporting back to head office, but it seems more likely that their head office would be running this. There will usually be differing points of view within the company, and the legal aspects of a case don't always mesh with the commercial issues. This means that steps may be taken against legal advice for commercial reasons (including simply posturing, or for reputational reasons - and remember that companies are concerned with their reputations beyond internet forums). For all anyone knows, GW is fully aware of any shortcomings in its claims, and has taken these steps for purely commercial reasons. It's also worth remembering that there hasn't been much litigation over gaming miniatures, so there's a degree of uncertainty over this area.

Tailgunner wrote:
Bringing proceedings in a 'foreign' jurisdiction is actually a highly complex process, and will normally involve people from different sides of the business. There will often be UK-based lawyers involved, either advising the company or instructing the US counsel on behalf of the company. It's possible that GW in the US are running this litigation, and simply reporting back to head office, but it seems more likely that their head office would be running this. There will usually be differing points of view within the company, and the legal aspects of a case don't always mesh with the commercial issues. This means that steps may be taken against legal advice for commercial reasons (including simply posturing, or for reputational reasons - and remember that companies are concerned with their reputations beyond internet forums). For all anyone knows, GW is fully aware of any shortcomings in its claims, and has taken these steps for purely commercial reasons. It's also worth remembering that there hasn't been much litigation over gaming miniatures, so there's a degree of uncertainty over this area.

Thanks for the info Tailgunner!

Tailgunner wrote:
There will often be UK-based lawyers involved, either advising the company or instructing the US counsel on behalf of the company.

Seems like this might be part of the problem with the way the suit is being handled.

Tailgunner wrote:
but it seems more likely that their head office would be running this.

Can't imagine there would be any question of this not being the case now. At this stage, this case is far too important to be left to the colonials, although it may not have started out that way. Could have started as a US only operation that very quickly got into deeper water than was anticipated.

Re "posturing": When "posturing" starts annoying the judge, its probably time to get the case back on track....

timd wrote:Can't imagine there would be any question of this not being the case now. At this stage, this case is far too important to be left to the colonials, although it may not have started out that way. Could have started as a US only operation that very quickly got into deeper water than was anticipated.

It may not be as important to head office as you think. The US is only one of their markets, and they probably have lawyers engaged on a regular basis dealing with IP-related issues. It's even possible that this was instigated by their US side. We simply don't know. Companies like GW are normally quite nervous about this kind of action, because (contrary to the common perception) they worry about reputational fallout. I would bet that there are people within GW who aren't happy about taking on someone like CH.

Re "posturing": When "posturing" starts annoying the judge, its probably time to get the case back on track....

Agreed. Obvious posturing normally annoys judges intensely. Particularly people writing poison pen letters to each other - judges hate having to read that stuff. But I was using posturing in the broader sense - the action itself may be a means to an end, and not and end in itself. At its crudest, this can mean simply forcing the other side to spend so much on legal costs that they have to capitulate. Again, we have no way of knowing whether that was part of the strategy.

timd wrote:The UK legal system and the US legal system are quite different. As an example, there is no Supreme court in the UK. The House of Lords is the "court of highest appeal".

Wrong.

http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/

The UK has had a Supreme Court since 2009.

A few questions:
1) How much can a company claim under derivative works? Lets say GW creates a Tyranid warrior and successfully copyrights the design. Then they create a Hie Tyrant - it uses the same elements that made the Warrior identifiable: head ridges, breathing holes, exoskeleton etc, but is bigger, has some other variations, and different weapons. Am I correct in saying that is a derivative work?
GW then continues making more and more Tyranids, all the while keeping the same elements of head ridges, exoskeleton, carapace, further cementing their derivative status.
Then someone else makes a model with exactly the same elements. But GW has the exclusive rights to make a derivative work.... right?

2) How are 'functional elements' regarded in artistic works? Ie, I draw a picture of a robot with a specific, fanciful and meaningless arrangement of gears and mechanics on its legs. Sure, a robot probably needs mechanics of some sort to work... but is what I drew really 'functional'? It doesn't function at all.

3) If GW wins (on all points, which is unlikely), why does that define exactly what other companies can do? Wouldn't that define what other companies *can't* do? From what people are saying what happens if GW wins/loses, it sounds like GW sued CHS because GW were afraid they would lose... Is it possible for the case to be dismissed and thus not legally define anything if GW plays its case exactly right (or exactly wrong, however you look at it)?

Trasvi wrote:1) How much can a company claim under derivative works? Lets say GW creates a Tyranid warrior and successfully copyrights the design. Then they create a Hie Tyrant - it uses the same elements that made the Warrior identifiable: head ridges, breathing holes, exoskeleton etc, but is bigger, has some other variations, and different weapons. Am I correct in saying that is a derivative work?

Yes, it is a derivative work.

Trasvi wrote:GW then continues making more and more Tyranids, all the while keeping the same elements of head ridges, exoskeleton, carapace, further cementing their derivative status.
Then someone else makes a model with exactly the same elements. But GW has the exclusive rights to make a derivative work.... right?

A derivative work is a new work that incorporates a substantial amount of copyrighted or non-original work. The changes made to the derivative work may be independently copyrightable.

A good example of a derivative work is L.H.O.O.Q. When the author made his parody, he didn't get any rights in the underlying work. But he did acquire rights in the new work. Someone could copy the Mona Lisa without infringing Duchamp's copyright. But they couldn't copy L.H.O.O.Q. in its entirety, nor could they take a copy of the Mona Lisa and modify it to look like L.H.O.O.Q.

Trasvi wrote:2) How are 'functional elements' regarded in artistic works? Ie, I draw a picture of a robot with a specific, fanciful and meaningless arrangement of gears and mechanics on its legs. Sure, a robot probably needs mechanics of some sort to work... but is what I drew really 'functional'? It doesn't function at all.

Useful ideas are only protectable to the extent that some artistic expression is identifiably distinct from the functional elements. Here your robot picture is entirely non-functional, and therefore protectable. However, if you drew a blueprint of how the gears and mechanics of its legs were to be arranged to form a functional device, that would not be protectable.

Trasvi wrote:3) If GW wins (on all points, which is unlikely), why does that define exactly what other companies can do? Wouldn't that define what other companies *can't* do? From what people are saying what happens if GW wins/loses, it sounds like GW sued CHS because GW were afraid they would lose... Is it possible for the case to be dismissed and thus not legally define anything if GW plays its case exactly right (or exactly wrong, however you look at it)?

Every case between two parties is unique. The court cannot, through its determination in the GW-CH lawsuit, affect the rights or interests of third parties.

However, what the case may do is increase the appearance of the strength of GW's IP so that no one would later want to challenge it.

Consider 3 people living on adjacent lots: A, B, C. A sues B over the precise location of the property line. B eventually wins the case because a surveyor came out and said that the line between A & B was exactly as it's supposed to be drawn. C may then be wary about suing B over the property line on his side.

But if B loses (the property line was way off), then C might be encouraged and suspect that maybe the property line on his side is off as well.

In neither case does the determination of B's property line with A have any bearing on the property line with C.

biccat - A derivative work is by definition a new copyright. It never grants control of the underlying copyright, but as the preparation of derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, I believe the new copyright in the derivative work is also controlled by the holder of the underlying copyright.

Additionally, a derivative work must be recast, transformed, or adapted from the underlying copyright. A derivative work must therefore contain a significant amount of the protectible elements of the underlying copyright. Much like determining infringement, determining whether a work is derivative of another is a complicated process whenever it diverges from the explicit examples described in the copyright code. None of these examples describe works of visual art (other than a motion picture adaptation, but that is not strictly a work of visual art in the sense that we are discussing here). If nothing in the allegedly derivative work is demonstrably the same as that in the underlying copyright (here I mean literally, as in directly recast or adapted, such as sculpting a human torso onto a horse model to create a centaur) the determination of whether any elements have been drawn from, and are implicitly embodied in, the underlying copyright can be very subjective, perhaps even more so than a straight determination of copying.

Personally, I have always found the concept of derivative works to be subject to dangerously over-broad interpretation. The intent of the statute, it seems to me, is to prevent someone from gaining control over an underlying copyright by recasting, transforming, or adapting it. If, for example, I take Biccat's horse model and make it into a centaur, without the protection afforded by the right of a copyright holder to prepare derivative works, I would now gain control over the bottom half of Biccat's horse model. That's an imperfect example because the new centaur copyright would be considered in its entire context, but it seems like that's the gist. Examples are much more clear when one turns to the examples cited in the definition itself, e.g. a translation or abridgment. It would suck to write a novel in English and have someone else gain rights to a French translation of it. Similarly, it would not be fair to lose rights to an abridged version of the same novel considering that the abridgment incorporated not only the artistic work of the narrative, etc. but also whole written passages from the work.

When the concept of derivative works is applied when no direct copying can be established, it seems to me that the line between copying and inspiration comes very dangerously close to being blurred to the point of giving copyright holders de-facto control over works that bear an insignificant similarity. To put it succinctly, if a claim of copying would fail because two works are not significantly similar, the concept of derivative works should not be used as a means to "lessen" the degree of similarity required to demonstrate infringement. If you cannot show, for example, that my space bug is a copy of your space bug, it should not be acceptable for you to instead allege that my space bug is derivative of your space bug and simply hope to broaden the scope of your copyright.

Also to note regarding "functional" elements, copyright in theory does not grant the holder control over unprotectible elements, which would include elements drawn from the public domain, or that which is not protected by copyright, such as concepts, etc. Given this, I think it is important to point out that in the robot example, the copyright would not necessarily extend to, say, the gears, or the structure of the robot. A better example is a Jet pack.

If you draw a jet pack, you aren't allowed to control all jet packs. In this sense, even though one jet pack bears similarity to another jet pack, those elements which are inseparable from the idea or concept of a jet pack are not protectable insofar as, as you mentioned, artistic expression is indistinct from the element. All jet packs require a "jet" and, being a "pack" are typically strapped to one's back. That two jet pack works are composed of jet engines strapped to one's back should be excluded when considering infringement.

Even so, the works are ideally considered in their entirety with the artistic uniqueness of the works compared. A determination is then made whether the allegedly infringing work has unfairly appropriated a significant amount of the protectable elements of the allegedly infringed work, thus meaning that it is a copy.

The point of this calculus is to prevent copyright holders from gaining de-facto control over unprotectible elements.

weeble1000 wrote:biccat - A derivative work is by definition a new copyright. It never grants control of the underlying copyright, but as the preparation of derivative works is an exclusive right of the copyright holder, I believe the new copyright in the derivative work is also controlled by the holder of the underlying copyright.

I suppose that could have been clearer.

If I slap a "Cthulu 2012: Why vote for the lesser evil" bumper sticker on the Mona Lisa (artistically), I have created a derivative work that is protectable. But I don't hold the copyright to either independently.

But if I draw an attractive hat on the Mona Lisa, I have created a derivative work and the drawing of the hat is independently copyrightable.

Moving to the miniatures realm, when GW copies the Carnifex base and adds new tentacles, the derivative work is protectable and the new tentacle design is separately protectable. But if they simply used bits from the Dark Eldar Talos, the derivative work would be protectable but copyright of the underlying work (either the carnifex body or Talos arms) wouldn't "reset".

weeble1000 wrote:Also to note regarding "functional" elements, copyright in theory does not grant the holder control over unprotectible elements, which would include elements drawn from the public domain, or that which is not protected by copyright, such as concepts, etc. Given this, I think it is important to point out that in the robot example, the copyright would not necessarily extend to, say, the gears, or the structure of the robot.

In the example given the drawing is protectable because the gears are fanciful not functional. Further, copyright protection might exted to the structure of the robot to the extent that the structure conveys an artistic intent. The robot in Lost in Space has a different structure than R2D2 who has a different structure than Gort.

I agree that your jetpack example works better than the robot example.

Tailgunner wrote:

timd wrote:
A most interesting thread folks. Please keep up the quality posting.

I am assuming that the suit is being driven from Nottingham by GW's UK lawyers. If most of their US IP suits have resulted in roll overs by the defendants, they do not have much actual US courtroom experience. The GWUK lawyers' experience in UK courts may be working to their disadvantage when trying to manage a long distance suit in the US.

The UK legal system and the US legal system are quite different. As an example, there is no Supreme court in the UK. The House of Lords is the "court of highest appeal". From stuff I have seen, the courts seem to be slightly weighed in favor of the big guys which is, perhaps, a leftover from the royalty/peasantry days. Successful lawyers for a fair sized UK corporation may be having a hard time figuring how US courts work, but they do seem to be getting an education through this case.

More UK/US justice system comparison here:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/259964/a_comparison_of_british_and_american.html

It seems like this case is being handled very badly. Is this caused by UK lawyers driving the case or by (what appears to be) gross negligence by their US lawyers?

Any UK solicitors reading this thread? Would things have happened differently in a UK courtroom?

Tim

I work for a UK-based law firm, and this isn't how things work at all, either in terms of the way the English legal system operates or the way a UK corporation instructs US counsel. The US legal system isn't that different from the UK system in substance; the nomenclature is different, and US attorneys tend to have a more 'in your face' approach, but the dynamics are very similar, as are the tactics. One you get past the jargon, US and UK lawyers usually find they have a lot in common. There is a perception that what happens 'in the courtroom' is decisive, but in civil litigation a lot of the important steps take place outside the courtroom (about 95% of civil claims settle before trial). So you can't assess what's really going on simply from what's publically available.

It's nonsense to suggest that UK courts are biased in favour of the big guys. Large corporations can afford to spend more on their legal teams, but judges regularly rule against powerful plaintiffs in the UK.

Bringing proceedings in a 'foreign' jurisdiction is actually a highly complex process, and will normally involve people from different sides of the business. There will often be UK-based lawyers involved, either advising the company or instructing the US counsel on behalf of the company. It's possible that GW in the US are running this litigation, and simply reporting back to head office, but it seems more likely that their head office would be running this. There will usually be differing points of view within the company, and the legal aspects of a case don't always mesh with the commercial issues. This means that steps may be taken against legal advice for commercial reasons (including simply posturing, or for reputational reasons - and remember that companies are concerned with their reputations beyond internet forums). For all anyone knows, GW is fully aware of any shortcomings in its claims, and has taken these steps for purely commercial reasons. It's also worth remembering that there hasn't been much litigation over gaming miniatures, so there's a degree of uncertainty over this area.

I tend to agree with you, in that this would appear to not be the first time that commercial decisions have trumped (presumed) legal advice. Particularly in commercial law suits, legal actions are just one means or applying pressure, and not always the most effective.

But I think there is a discrepancy in the possible perceptions that develop between UK and U.S. based litigation. While I don't think the UK courts are any more or less biased than the U.S. counterparts, the over all system of jurisprudence does tend to (or at least appears to, to my outsiders eyes) favor the big boys in the UK possibly a little more, just due to the overarching structure of its legal system and its rules. Things like the loser paying for costs, the ability to purchase injunction-like restrictions, etc., are two very different things that come to mind, and which allow for a very different environment for the legal processes to go forward. These have nothing to do with the bias of a court, but rather are structural differences within the two legal systems (and I am sure there are others as well, both pro and con, depending on your point of view).

Once you get into functionality, then you're starting to move into the purposes of patents... and its really a case of someone using a portion of law thats inadequete for protecting the full range of the design and has its own legal mechanism.

The way copyright on miniatures was explained to me... the point of a copyright on a miniature, such as the ones GW produces, is to protect GW from someone who would recast in portion or totality GW's miniature. A derivative work in this context is simply a miniature using significant details or components directly lifted from GW's model and passed off as part of another work. In general if I completely sculpt a piece that's very similar to a GW piece its a separate and independent work regardless of those similarities; there maybe other legal implications, but my piece is just as entitled to its own copyright protection. Preventing artists outside of GW from using GW's concept and stylistic features isn't reallly the purpose of the copyright on individual models.

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

Enjoy.

Next status hearing is scheduled for 7th November:
http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.

Eldanar wrote:But I think there is a discrepancy in the possible perceptions that develop between UK and U.S. based litigation. While I don't think the UK courts are any more or less biased than the U.S. counterparts, the over all system of jurisprudence does tend to (or at least appears to, to my outsiders eyes) favor the big boys in the UK possibly a little more, just due to the overarching structure of its legal system and its rules. Things like the loser paying for costs, the ability to purchase injunction-like restrictions, etc., are two very different things that come to mind, and which allow for a very different environment for the legal processes to go forward. These have nothing to do with the bias of a court, but rather are structural differences within the two legal systems (and I am sure there are others as well, both pro and con, depending on your point of view).

You can obtain injunctions and other restrictive orders under US law as well.

The 'costs follow the event' principle is probably one of the most important differences between the US and English legal systems. I don't think it necessarily favours the big players, but that's a fair point. There are also restrictions under English law on how claims can be brought which tend to discourage class actions and individuals being funded by third parties, but these things cut both ways. Ultimately, litigation is costly, and that's an issue for both jurisdictions. When US and English lawyers discuss litigation, there are more similarities than differences, and the underlying tactics don't vary much. My original point is that it's not likely that any English lawyers advising GW have misunderstood the US position. If GW have over-reached then it's not necessarily due to bad legal advice or incompetence.

Ok, so we may get some news on Nov 7th.

timd wrote:
A most interesting thread folks. Please keep up the quality posting.

I am assuming that the suit is being driven from Nottingham by GW's UK lawyers.

Wow, I sure hope not. Unless they've passed the bar exam in the US, they would be in a lot of trouble. In fact, I doubt that they could even send the cease and desist letter on GW's behalf if they hadn't passed the bar.

It is possible that the people instructing the lawyers have those problems, and I could see where some of these issues could come up. Although it is just as likely that GW is too large a company for anyone with actual power to be instructing the lawyers. And it looks like at least one side (probably both) need to get better instructions from their clients, it would make sense that they aren't getting good advice.


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that all of the Cease and Desist orders that they've thrown around have been against companies in the US. I mean, Mantic put up on their website that they're looking for names for their "dark eldar type" race, and openly selling minis to be used instead of GW ones. But Raging Heroes (a US company) needs to can their Lammasu head.

I thought Raging Heroes was French?
off to google to check

edit:

We are based in the South of France. We're a small boutique company, and work with great artists and partners from around the world.

odinsgrandson wrote:
Wow, I sure hope not. Unless they've passed the bar exam in the US, they would be in a lot of trouble. In fact, I doubt that they could even send the cease and desist letter on GW's behalf if they hadn't passed the bar.

I believe Paralegals, who often have a similar but different certification, are allowed to draft C&D's in addition to a lawyer or a self representing party.

odinsgrandson wrote:
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that all of the Cease and Desist orders that they've thrown around have been against companies in the US. I mean, Mantic put up on their website that they're looking for names for their "dark eldar type" race, and openly selling minis to be used instead of GW ones. But Raging Heroes (a US company) needs to can their Lammasu head.

I haven't been surprised by GW's severe misconceptions of US law.