Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**PsyberWolf**

AndrewC wrote:Continued to the 21st Nov it would appear. I guess someone rolled a six and so another turn takes place....

It looks like Paulson is in the clear though, did GW finally realise he wasn't involved to the extent they alledged?

Cheers

Andrew

Andrew,

I read it that Paulson provided the requested info - not that they were clearing him of any wrong doing. They would need to put forward specific & separate motion(s) to do that.

**fullheadofhair**

What is going to be interesting is how they disclose this in the accounts. If it is material enough to be disclosed (and the auditors will be the final arbitor of that) we will found out how significant GW deem the court case to be and the potential implications to the business if they lose.

**FabricatorGeneralMike**

fullheadofhair wrote:What is going to be interesting is how they disclose this in the accounts. If it is material enough to be disclosed (and the auditors will be the final arbitor of that) we will found out how significant GW deem the court case to be and the potential implications to the business if they lose.

Yep, in the ivory tower the higher-up's are scared because with the cost so far it's going to be very hard to issue a divident with a straight face. Mr Kirby does need to pad his personal 401k incase his "Golden Handshake" isn't enough.

**Kroothawk**

http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, October 26, 2011:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The 11/7/11 status
hearing before Judge Kennelly is vacated and reset to 11/21/11 at 9:30 a.m. (mk)

JOINT STIPULATION TO EXTEND FACT DISCOVERY

WHEREAS the deadline for the close of discovery under the Court’s scheduling order
dated February 28, 2011 (Dkt. No. 23) is October 31, 2011;

WHEREAS the Court, on August 16, 2011, referred the parties to Magistrate Judge
Gilbert to facilitate settlement discussions and to address certain discovery issues to facilitate a
meaningful settlement conference. (Dkt. No. 87);

WHEREAS, following a status conference before Judge Gilbert on September 1, 2011,
the parties have been regularly meeting with Judge Gilbert, and have now scheduled a settlement
and discovery conference on November 7, 2011, before Judge Gilbert (Dkt. No. 105);

WHEREAS the parties, under the direction of Judge Gilbert, have delayed certain
discovery and discovery motions in order to focus on issues most important to facilitate a
meaningful settlement conference with Judge Gilbert;

WHEREAS the Parties remain hopeful that the November 7, 2011 settlement conference
will help resolve some or all of the issues in the case and help streamline remaining discovery to
the extent the parties are unable to resolve this dispute, but nonetheless recognize that an
expressly contemplated purpose of the settlement and discovery conference is to schedule
completion of discovery that has been held in abeyance at the instruction of the Court;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by all of the parties hereto, subject to the
approval of the Court, that the deadline to complete fact discovery be, and hereby is, extended
beyond the October 31, 2011 cutoff until such time as the Parties and the Court establish a new
deadline after completion of the settlement and discovery conference currently scheduled for
November 7, 2011.

SO ORDERED
this ___ day of _________, 2011
_______________________
United States District Judge

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited (“Games Workshop”) moves this Court for an Order
extending the deadline to amend pleadings through and until December 1, 2011. In support of its
motion, Games Workshop states as follows:
1. Pursuant to this Court’s order dated September 6, 2011 (Dkt. No. 98), the
deadline for amending pleadings is November 1, 2011.
2. Despite having commenced discovery more than seven months ago, to date
Games Workshop has received very limited responses to its discovery requests (including
requests served on Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC (“Chapterhouse”) on March 25, 2011
and May 27, 2011, respectively which were the subject of the Court’s Order (Dkt. No. 66))
Games Workshop has since been seeking to resolve disputes regarding Chapterhouse regarding
these and other requests directly with counsel, without having to trouble the Court with motion
practice. Hence, for essentially the same reasons set forth in Games Workshop’s prior motion
(Dkt. No. 95 filed August 30, 2011), plaintiff must request again that the deadline to amend
pleadings be extended by one month.
3. Games Workshop has identified 97 products of Chapterhouse that it believes to be
infringing based on the similarities of the products to original sources, and Games Workshop
contends that, as a result, Chapterhouse’s entire website (focused exclusively on trading on
Games Workshop’s popular WARHAMMER books and games) is an infringement.
Chapterhouse’s admits access and copying, and its entire business exists to trade on Games
Workshop’s original works. However, Games Workshop is aware of additional new products of
Chapterhouse that may need to be brought into this lawsuit, and before making any final
accusations of copying, Games Workshop had expected to have received at least some
meaningful discovery from Chapterhouse. In fact, Games Workshop has received virtually none
despite the Court’s prior instructions.
4. Chapterhouse’s discovery failures also have raised the question of whether
additional parties will need to be named. Games Workshop questions whether it will need to add
as parties the individual designers and manufacturers of Chapterhouse’s accused products, but
because Chapterhouse has designated such information as “Confidential Attorneys-Eyes-Only”,
the undersigned counsel has been unable to confer even with in-house attorneys at Games
Workshop as to the roles of these third parties. Chapterhouse recently produced a portion of its
correspondence with these designers, suppliers and distributors, but at this time, without
substantive interrogatory responses, it is difficult for Games Workshop to understand the roles of
these third parties.
5. The Court has remanded the case for proceedings before Magistrate Judge Gilbert
to resolve discovery disputes and assess whether the parties can engage in any meaningful
settlement discussions, and, since September 1, 2011, Magistrate Judge Gilbert has largely
stayed completion of discovery pending a settlement and discovery conference in court. That
conference is now scheduled for November 7. Accordingly, although Games Workshop hopes
that the scope of the case will be narrowed substantially at the upcoming settlement and
discovery conference, and that, to the extent it is not resolved, Games Workshop will be
receiving soon the critical discovery that it needs to begin moving this case forward it does not
wish to be prejudiced in the interim. The claims against defendant Mr. Paulson have all
essentially been resolved (but-for one non-substantive issue) and Games Workshop does not
expect it will require any further discovery from Mr. Paulson.
6. Further, this Court has set the next status hearing for November 21, 2011, during
which time the parties will report to the Court the status of discovery and proceedings before
Magistrate Judge Gilbert.
7. Therefore, Games Workshop requests that the Court extend the deadline for
amending pleadings by one month, or through December 1, 2011.
8. Counsel for Games Workshop notified counsel for Chapterhouse and Mr. Paulson
of its intent to seek such an extension of time. Counsel for Chapterhouse indicated that it
opposes the motion.
WHEREFORE, Games Workshop respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
extend the deadline to amend pleadings through and until December 1, 2011.

DEFENDANT CHAPTERHOUSE STUDIOS LLC’S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
THIRD MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS
Chapterhouse opposes this, Plaintiff’s third motion to extend the deadline to amend the
pleadings.1
Plaintiff’s stated justification for the further extension is that it has received limited
responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests and, therefore, it is not yet able to determine whether
to name new products or new parties in the case. Yet Plaintiff fails to identify any outstanding
discovery that justifies the delay.
With respect to whether to amend to add new products, it is unclear what discovery
Plaintiff is waiting for, and Plaintiff identifies none. Its claim that “Chapterhouse’s [sic] admits
access and copying” (Mot. ¶ 3) is of course false. Chapterhouse has repeatedly denied copying
Plaintiff’s alleged works. Plaintiff also falsely implies that Chapterhouse has failed to produce
documents and respond to interrogatories that were the subject of the Court’s July 6, 2011 Order.
Mot. ¶ 2. Chapterhouse fully complied with that Order. In contrast, Plaintiff has still failed to
produce any of the 30 tangible things, and many of the printed works, that it claims
Chapterhouse has infringed, and that the Court ordered it to produce by July 29, 2011.2
With respect to whether to amend to add new parties, Plaintiff claims that Chapterhouse
has withheld information Plaintiff needs to make this decision because Chapterhouse designated
its interrogatory response (served three months ago) identifying designers and manufacturers as
Highly Confidential. Mot. ¶ 4. The Court has already considered, and rejected, Plaintiff’s
challenge to Chapterhouse’s confidentiality designation. See Aug. 23, 2011 Minute Order, at 2
(Dkt. No. 94) (“Plaintiff has not articulated any reason that it needs to know the information that
has been designated as Highly Confidential other than that it may need this information to
identify third parties it may want to add as named defendants in this case. But, assuredly, that is
not a proper reason for discovery”).
Plaintiff offers no appropriate reason for the Court to further extend the deadline to
amend the pleadings. And nothing prevents Plaintiff from seeking leave to amend its Complaint
in the future, provided it can show good cause. This motion is simply an effort by Plaintiff to
avoid having to make such a showing.3 It should be denied.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 8, 2011:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: The Court advises
counsel that at the 11/9/11 hearing date on plaintiff's motion to extend the deadline to
amend the pleadings, the Court anticipates addressing with counsel what modification is
required to the previously set fact discovery cutoff date; whether the parties anticipate
using experts and, if so, what dates should be set for disclosure and discovery of experts;
and what the deadline should be for filing dispositive motions. (mk)

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Tuesday, November 8, 2011:

MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Settlement conference held
on 11/7/11. Despite the parties' best efforts, they were unable to settle the case. Both
parties agreed that they will continue to evaluate their positions and remain open to further
settlement discussion as the case progresses and circumstances warrant. If the parties
desire to convene another settlement conference, they shall contact Magistrate Judge
Gilbert's chambers. The parties, by agreement, shall meet and confer about a revised
discovery timetable, and file a proposed discovery plan in accordance with Rule 26(f)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by 11/16/11. The parties shall outline in their
discovery plan any disagreements they have with respect to the matters described in Rule
26(f)(3)(A) (F). The District Judge referred this case for settlement and discovery issues
associated with settlement [89]. As there presently are no outstanding discovery issues
that relate solely to settlement, the parties are directed to present to the District Judge any
discovery issues that arise as the case proceeds, unless they are ordered to do otherwise.
Mailed notice(ep, )

Here some comments:

PsyberWolf over at Warseer wrote:OK, there have been some updates posted on RECAP. I will try to give you a rundown (as best as I can from a non-lawyer)

There are really three threads going on right now:

Thread 1: GW amended complaint (Due Nov 1st)
Thread 2: Fact discovery (supposed to end Oct 31st)
Thread 3: Settlement and discovery conference (Rescheduled for Nov 7th)

Thread 1 - GW amended complaint
GW put forth a motion asking to extend the deadline to Dec 1st:
-Reiterated that there are 97 infringing products
-Said CHS' entire website is infringing
-saying CHS hasn't provided any of the information asked for in discovery
-Said they may need to add designers (et. al.) to the complaint to get the info they need
-Said they can't get those designer's names because CHS is claiming it is private
-Paulson has provided all of the information

CHS opposes the motion saying:
-They have already given GW all the information asked for
-GW can't specify what discovery info is missing
-CHS denies copying their works
-GW still has not produced the supposedly infringing works (that was required by July 29th)
-The names of CHS designers are private and the judge already denied a motion to compel that info from CHS
-If they need to amend the motion later they can through a future motion should it be warranted

There was a hearing date set for Nov 9th for a decision but nothing has been released yet related to that.

Thread 2: Fact discovery
All parties agreed to extend this date out from Oct 31st to some date decided at the Nov 7th settlement conference.

Thread 3: Settlement conference
No surprise neither party wants to settle and discovery related to settlement is over. It sounds like there is some additional discovery issues that they need to work through though. Both parties will get together and create a schedule for the rest of discovery. This thread is done unless someone wants to offer a settlement.

A status conference with Judge Kennelly has been moved out to Nov 21st.

tl;dr - the game of chess continues. GW says CHS didn't give them anything and CHS said GW didn't give them anything. All the judges' efforts to move this forward have failed.

Avian wrote:So is it possible that the judge gets fed up and dismisses the case entirely?

It's possible though not likely.

The scenario would play out like this - after GW submits their amended motion, CHS renews it's motion to dismiss due to the complaint being too vague. If the judge agrees he could dismiss the case "without prejudice" (meaning GW could come back at a later time and refile the case)

As a side note that may be what GW is hoping for. If the case is dismissed they can still claim extra-legal IP rights and re-sue CHS without (possibly) the benefit of Pro Bono representation.

forthegloryofkazadekrund wrote:As PsyberWolf recaped the current situation in a great manner, heres the main 2 new free entries from here if you want to look through them and on the PACER site
To me it still seems like GW is still being seen as the screaming child bawling thier eyes out about thier IP and being sent to the naughty step by frankly a good defence by the Chapterhouse team. I think that the GW team isnt doing a good job really as they dont seem to have any teeth, wether that is because they are being hampered by CH or are not really trying and have sent a team of chimps into court to fling poo at the CH team to make them relent.
Its just under a year now since it started and CH have set up thier defence the like of which GW have never seen before and it seems to have got to them as i dont think they expected this as previous attacks on "IP infringers" have allways backed down against the might of GW.

**Howard A Treesong**

It's been very nearly a year now, I cant see that an extension will achieve much. GW are still trying the tactic of getting CHS to incriminate themselves by offering up stuff they think they've infringed with, instead of GW telling them what they have infringed. I think CHS are right to push to prevent an extension on the deadline, GW just seem to be spinning it out for whatever reason.

My fear is that the case could be dismissed without prejudice and GW will try it on again hoping that CHS wouldn't get pro-bono defence a second time and fold without a fight. I think that would be the least satisfactory outcome for us as hobbyists.

**carmachu**

I cant see the judge giving GW another extension, given the CH lawyers laid out why not with court minutes of what the judge has said.

Where as GW is still going with "CH isnt giving us what we want to incriminate themselves." But hey who knows...It be nice to see the judge give GW lawyers another smackdown like early on with discovery when they were screwing around.

**odinsgrandson**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
My fear is that the case could be dismissed without prejudice and GW will try it on again hoping that CHS wouldn't get pro-bono defence a second time and fold without a fight. I think that would be the least satisfactory outcome for us as hobbyists.

I agree.

I would hope that the Pro-Bono defense was due to GW acting just like that, and that they would spring back into action if GW tries their strong arm tactics a second time. A second case where CHS just folds because they don't have their own defense would end badly (although I doubt that CHS would just fold- those guys have been stubborn so far).

But CHS might even get the same defense team on the case- and at that point, it shouldn't be too difficult to argue that the case needs to be dismissed with prejudice (especially if GW comes forward with nothing a second time).

**Kilkrazy**

The case has to be settled because Chapter House need to know the limits to which they can take their business.

Since the case was filed, they have branched out into whole figures, the Doom Seer and the Space Elf Warrior Princess.

GW seem to want to add these figures to the case.

CH need to know if they can make more such figures in the future.

**Breotan**

How do you see there ever being a settlement in this case?

**AndrewC**

PsyberWolf wrote:Andrew,

I read it that Paulson provided the requested info - not that they were clearing him of any wrong doing. They would need to put forward specific & separate motion(s) to do that.

It was the part where they said that all claims against him had been resolved barring 'one non-substantive issue'. Considering they went after him in a similar manner to CHS, and basically received the same response, ie the Defendant denies/rejects all allegations, it would appear that GW are no longer pursuing him. It was the fact that they specifically used the word claims rather than referring to the discovery.

But I could be wrong, and have been in the past.

Cheers

Andrew

**-Loki-**

Well, they specifically mentioned him in regards to the design of the not-Tau Walker. They weren't just generally going after everything he's done. Which he had absolutely nothing to do with. So he likely provided evidence he didn't have any involvment in that model, and GW are happy.

**The Grundel**

Occupy gamesstreet... no wait nevermind.

**aka_mythos**

-Loki- wrote:Well, they specifically mentioned him in regards to the design of the not-Tau Walker. They weren't just generally going after everything he's done. Which he had absolutely nothing to do with. So he likely provided evidence he didn't have any involvment in that model, and GW are happy.

I don't know this for a fact, but wasn't Paulson GW's justification for it choice of venue?-I mean if he's no longer involved couldn't the Judge toss the remainder of the case for no longer being the appropriate venue? Neither GW or CH maintain offices or significant operations in the Illinois.

**Kroothawk**

-Loki- wrote:Well, they specifically mentioned him in regards to the design of the not-Tau Walker.

Yes, GW did. Only problem is that Paulson has absolutely nothing to do with Chapterhouse in general nor the non-Tau walker in specific. Every photo of the walker clearly states the correct sculptor Zac Soden. Classic epic fail, resulting in the case being dealt with in Chicago for no reason at all.

**Kilkrazy**

Breotan wrote:How do you see there ever being a settlement in this case?

The court can impose a settlement if it's necessary to clarify the legal status of the disputed materials.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Breotan wrote:How do you see there ever being a settlement in this case?

The court can impose a settlement if it's necessary to clarify the legal status of the disputed materials.

Now GW are in the system, they won't necessarily be able simply to withdraw as if nothing had happened.

**-Loki-**

Kroothawk wrote:
-Loki- wrote:Well, they specifically mentioned him in regards to the design of the not-Tau Walker.

Yes, GW did. Only problem is that Paulson has absolutely nothing to do with Chapterhouse in general nor the non-Tau walker in specific. Every photo of the walker clearly states the correct sculptor Zac Soden. Classic epic fail, resulting in the case being dealt with in Chicago for no reason at all.

If you quoted past that sentence, you'd have noticed I already mentioned he had nothing to do with it...

**Aerethan**

I do not see this ending "well" for GW. They will lose here, and a bunch of CHS's will pop up and us as hobbyists will profit.

GW needs to embrace the hobby instead of ignoring it and only embracing business.

This whole thing has just made my view of GW even worse than their price raises have. They lost absolutely no business to CHS and if anything, CHS requires you to buy GW product in order to use theirs. Win-win.

**Kanluwen**

What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?

**Aerethan**

Kanluwen wrote:What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?

the army they go with

**Kanluwen**

Aerethan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?

the army they go with

The point was lost on you, I think.

**Aerethan**

I get that they are stand alone products, however they are still meant to accompany a GW army. 98% of their products are not stand alone pieces and require one to purchase the proper GW kit in order to use them.

**Tronzor**

Aerethan wrote:I do not see this ending "well" for GW. They will lose here, and a bunch of CHS's will pop up and us as hobbyists will profit.

GW needs to embrace the hobby instead of ignoring it and only embracing business.

This whole thing has just made my view of GW even worse than their price raises have. They lost absolutely no business to CHS and if anything, CHS requires you to buy GW product in order to use theirs. Win-win.

I couldn't agree with this more. When I found out about CHS and their "True Scale" StormRaven kit, my first thought was, I need to buy this, and a StormRaven. I have no need for either and I can't get the CHS kit now because of the lawsuit. GW is out $80 CAD as a result.

**Aerethan**

The kit is still for sale on their site.

**Tronzor**

I think it's still listed but it has perpetually been out of stock for the past 3-4 months. I suspected this litigation was part of the reason they were unable to restock. [edit] This message has been on the "item details" page since September "We have sold out of current stock of this item, if you wish to purchase this kit it will ship out as soon as your allotted kit is manufactured. Estimated wait for paid orders is 1-4 weeks (most orders ship out in 1-2 weeks)."

I misinterpreted this, sorry.

**AndrewC**

General question, did Paulson ever receive a C&D letter?

Everybody is surmising that Paulson was the excuse to get the case out of CHs state and moved to Chicago because GW felt that the courts there would favour them, is there anything there to back that up?

Cheers

Andrew

**biccat**

So lets start with the easy one:

Last one on the list

Settlement conference held on 11/7/11. Despite the parties' best efforts, they were unable to settle the case.

GW & CH decided they can't reach a settlement, so they'll continue with the case. Not a huge surprise, shows that both sides still think that there's some value in litigation.

Now to the more interesting document, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS

As we discussed upthread (way back) when GW first tried to extend the time for amending their pleadings, GW needs to reasonably appraise CH of their complaint: what did CH do that was illegal and what relief is GW seeking?

GW's argument is basically that CH's failure to answer discovery requests is sufficient reason why GW can't amend their pleadings at this time. Specifically:

However, Games Workshop is aware of additional new products of
Chapterhouse that may need to be brought into this lawsuit, and before making any final
accusations of copying, Games Workshop had expected to have received at least some
meaningful discovery from Chapterhouse.

This is, in my personal opinion, completely absurd and I don't know how they're getting away with it. GW is basically using this suit as an excuse to conduct discovery against Chapterhouse without a formal accusation of copyright infringement. If they don't have a case against CH, they shouldn't be in discovery.

And a second reason is given:

Chapterhouse’s discovery failures also have raised the question of whether
additional parties will need to be named. Games Workshop questions whether it will need to add
as parties the individual designers and manufacturers of Chapterhouse’s accused products, but
because Chapterhouse has designated such information as “Confidential Attorneys-Eyes-Only”,
the undersigned counsel has been unable to confer even with in-house attorneys at Games
Workshop as to the roles of these third parties. Chapterhouse recently produced a portion of its
correspondence with these designers, suppliers and distributors, but at this time, without
substantive interrogatory responses, it is difficult for Games Workshop to understand the roles of
these third parties.

Again, GW is fishing for information - specifically the names and contributions of additional parties who might be subject to suit. However, again, GW can't use discovery as a 'fishing expedition' to find more defendants. Further, these parties remained confidential (see previous order on this point) because of this type of 'fishing expedition' that CH alleged.

Finally, I find it interesting that Foley & Lardner is using a senior (2003 grad) and mid-level associate (2009 grad) as their lead counsel on this, the partner appears to be in more of an advisory role.

Frankly, this is a well written but legally dubious (to be generous) argument to extend the deadline to amend their pleadings. CH's response is decent, although it's pretty nice.

**Aerethan**

Always refreshing to hear from a professional, Biccat. Thanks for spelling it out for those of us who don't understand legal jargon.

**Shepherd23**

Kanluwen wrote:
Aerethan wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:What product do you have to buy to use the Doomseer or Scorpion Warrior Lady, Aerethan?

the army they go with

The point was lost on you, I think.

I do not really see that there is a point to your argument at all as both of these models have been released since the lawsuit was started. A year ago when this whole idiotic case was started CH had only accessories and a few unique whole models.

Now I do understand the point that you are trying to make, Kan, but I do not believe it to be as valid as you are attempting to make it. First, as Aerathan stated, you still need the army to go with these models. Second, the models are not a direct copy of anything that GW makes. The design elements are similar to GW models, but they are not direct copies. Just like the jetbike space elf is similar to GW stuff, but again, is not a direct copy. These design elements may imply usage of said model in GW games, but it does not imply copying of GW copyrighted material. We would not buy them if they did not imply usage.

This is something that I believe alot of people do not really understand. Looks like and copied are actually different things. Raging Heroes and Avatars of War have been doing this for sometime now and to my knowledge the only thing that has ever come up with either of them that had results was GW crying foul with the Lamassu head issue. This was a bogus complaint as well, as historic images prove that the head is not unique to GW sculpts.

So to close, looking like something that already exists is not a crime. There are many examples in real life of this fact if you just look around. Direct copying of a unique items, however, is a crime. IMHO I do not believe that CH has actually directly copied anything at all. GW has actually skated this line since their inception and really should (and probably does) know better and is just pursuing this case because they do not want others playing at their games, I guess.

**skyth**

I am amused that that GW claims that CHS admited to copying and CHS basically said they were full of it. I wonder if GW can get sanctioned for falsely claiming that CHS admitted to this.

Edit - Isn't that the definition of Perjury?

**CorvidMP**

skyth wrote:I am amused that that GW claims that CHS admited to copying and CHS basically said they were full of it. I wonder if GW can get sanctioned for falsely claiming that CHS admitted to this.

Edit - Isn't that the definition of Perjury?

No perjury would have required GW to knowingly lie about something in court. GW thinks they are in the right, and are asking the courts to verify this. If the court find that they are wrong, it doesn't mean they didn't file the lawsuit in good faith, or that they lied about thinking that CH had infringed on thier IP.

And stuff.