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.

CorvidMP wrote:

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.

IF the lawsuit is deamed to be milicious though, filling it 2 days before X-mas, delay after delay in presenting it's case and the 'evidience' that CHS -COPIED- directly any of their models would CHS be able to countersue/have sanctions/whatever lego mumbo jumbo againsted GW for filing this in bad faith? Or does that just open another can of worms?

I think that CHS has already lodged the ground work for restitution should GWs case go out the window.

It was buried in the earlier posts.

Cheers

Andrew

CorvidMP wrote:

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.

Isn't claiming in legal documents that CHS admitted to copying knowingly lying?

skyth wrote:

CorvidMP wrote:

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.

Isn't claiming in legal documents that CHS admitted to copying knowingly lying?

I think that the problem is that you have to prove that they knew they were lying. It is not perjury if the "thought" that they were telling the truth.

d-usa wrote:

skyth wrote:

CorvidMP wrote:

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.

Isn't claiming in legal documents that CHS admitted to copying knowingly lying?

I think that the problem is that you have to prove that they knew they were lying. It is not perjury if the "thought" that they were telling the truth.

How did they draw the conclusion that CHS had admitted doing such a thing? Seems like a bit of a trick to me, to claim this and hope that CHS lawyers miss it so they can later say that CHS didn't make any effort to deny it so must be guilty.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

d-usa wrote:I think that the problem is that you have to prove that they knew they were lying. It is not perjury if the "thought" that they were telling the truth.

How did they draw the conclusion that CHS had admitted doing such a thing? Seems like a bit of a trick to me, to claim this and hope that CHS lawyers miss it so they can later say that CHS didn't make any effort to deny it so must be guilty.

That is probably a question for our more legally versed members. I don't know if lack of denial would equal an admission of guild in an affair like this.

I don't know what GW think,. their whole approach seems a bit odd. Maybe they are just lulling CHS into a false sense of security.

Howard A Treesong wrote:I don't know what GW think,. their whole approach seems a bit odd. Maybe they are just lulling CHS into a false sense of security.

Most likely that GW is used to folks folding at the first sign of a lawsuit. Their not use to folks actually defending themselves in court....

CH have a high power legal firm.

Perjury is lying on oath in court.

Kilkrazy - where does misrepresentation of facts in documents submitted to the court fall, out of interest?

I'm fairly certain something similar (in terms of documents submitted to court with interesting definitions of accuracy) occured in one of the Apple vs Samsung cases, with the Apple documents allegedly having a manipulated image of a Samsung Galaxy Tab next to an iPad, where the GT's dimensions had been "adjusted"...

It seems like something that should come with some punishment, that's all.

They could simply claim they misconstrued 'inspired' with 'copied'.

It easily enough done if you are incompetent.

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.

The reason for Chicago was a planned move by GW. Chicago is GW's largest customer base in the US, so it is a much friendlier venue. I am willing to bet that GW included Paulson Games simply to move the venue.

Kilkrazy wrote:CH have a high power legal firm.

Perjury is lying on oath in court.

Perjury is lying when you've taken an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. For example, when a lawyer presents a document to court he is affirming (in the legal sense) that the statements of fact contained therein are true and that the legal conclusions based on those facts conform to existing law or a reasonable extension thereof. So a conclusion of copying (copyright infringement) isn't necessarily lying, even if there it turns out not to be true.

I think there's enough of a case here that GW has met their burden to avoid any claim of perjury.

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

I'd really like to hear someone else's perspective on this, because I can't see how GW keeps getting away with these types of motions.

biccat wrote:

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

I'd really like to hear someone else's perspective on this, because I can't see how GW keeps getting away with these types of motions.

I don't have your legal background, but might it simply be because as you said "there's enough of a case here" that the judge feels it's appropriate to let the case continue?

biccat wrote:
I'd really like to hear someone else's perspective on this, because I can't see how GW keeps getting away with these types of motions.

Given the shenanigans we are seeing in a number of Second Amendment cases in Chicago, it could well be a completely corrupt local judiciary.

Tim

Kanluwen wrote:

biccat wrote:
I'd really like to hear someone else's perspective on this, because I can't see how GW keeps getting away with these types of motions.

I don't have your legal background, but might it simply be because as you said "there's enough of a case here" that the judge feels it's appropriate to let the case continue?

I think what Biccat is getting at Kan is that GW seems to be constantly putting in the same motion with the same reasons with the same result time after time. He's not talking about the actual case itself.

Cheers

Andrew

So long story short :

GW: yous copied our stuff
CH: what did we copy
GW: well our stuff
CH: what stuff?
GW: they are not revealing the stuff they copied! Judge grind them down for us
CH:LoL

this wouldnt be the first time GW tried to ugh....whats another word for it?........s***w someone over! remember the price jump when metals left and finecast came in.......It was a grim day which no one shall forget.

biccat wrote:Perjury is lying when you've taken an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. For example, when a lawyer presents a document to court he is affirming (in the legal sense) that the statements of fact contained therein are true and that the legal conclusions based on those facts conform to existing law or a reasonable extension thereof. So a conclusion of copying (copyright infringement) isn't necessarily lying, even if there it turns out not to be true.

Actually, I was talking about GW's claim that CHS admitted to copying the works. The court case is about if they copied, and GW made the bald-face lie in the court papers that CHS admitted to it.

Phototoxin wrote:So long story short :

GW: yous copied our stuff
CH: what did we copy
GW: well our stuff
CH: what stuff?
GW: they are not revealing the stuff they copied! Judge grind them down for us
CH:LoL

Perfect! That's it in a nutshell.

timd wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:So long story short :

GW: yous copied our stuff
CH: what did we copy
GW: well our stuff
CH: what stuff?
GW: they are not revealing the stuff they copied! Judge grind them down for us
CH:LoL

Perfect! That's it in a nutshell.

Pretty much don't forget though, GW: "Why arn't you helping us destroy you??"

skyth wrote:

biccat wrote:Perjury is lying when you've taken an oath or affirmation to tell the truth. For example, when a lawyer presents a document to court he is affirming (in the legal sense) that the statements of fact contained therein are true and that the legal conclusions based on those facts conform to existing law or a reasonable extension thereof. So a conclusion of copying (copyright infringement) isn't necessarily lying, even if there it turns out not to be true.

Actually, I was talking about GW's claim that CHS admitted to copying the works. The court case is about if they copied, and GW made the bald-face lie in the court papers that CHS admitted to it.

Aye, that's the bit that piqued my interest in the misrepresentation issue as well. If CH haven't admitted copying (which seems a logical conclusion, as I imagine this case would be over if they had), then claiming in a document submitted to the court (PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS, point 3, quoted by Kroothawk on 14/11/2011 and quoted again by me below) that they have seems like it should cause legal problems for them.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS wrote:
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.

I've put the relevant bit in bold text.

Should this have repercussions?

I agree. GW lawyers are begging to be punished for having lost any grasp of reality.

Chapterhouse lawyers are also getting annoyed:

"Defendant also respectfully requests that the Court order Plaintiff to pay
Defendant’s reasonable expenses occasioned by Plaintiff’s failure to produce the required
documents and information, including attorneys’ fees associated with this motion, as
required by Rule 37. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(C)."

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.78.0.pdf (page 10, bottom)

Dysartes wrote:

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO AMEND PLEADINGS wrote:
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.

I've put the relevant bit in bold text.

Should this have repercussions?

I seem to recall mention that something of theirs actually had part of a GW kit in it for the basis, so it was a recast GW part. Might have been the Tervigon kit. Which that might be referring to.

-Loki- wrote:

I seem to recall mention that something of theirs actually had part of a GW kit in it for the basis, so it was a recast GW part. Might have been the Tervigon kit. Which that might be referring to.

I can see how the old threads and pictures of the sculpting process and the bragging CH did on dakka for years could give GW the impression they admitted to access and copying GW stuff. Especially when GW parts were used as blanks for recasting and images with GW models parts were labeled COPYRIGHT Chapterhouse.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/258438.page


Seems confusing for us non-lawyers...?

Again, most of you are reading too much into the legal posturing. There is no issue of perjury or 'lying' here - both parties are slinging allegations at each other (including GW's claims that CH has admitted wrongdoing and CH's statements that this is 'wrong' or 'false'), but these are procedural matters, and this sort of thing is normal in civil litiation. GW is almost certainly fishing for more evidence, but that's also usual in cases involving these kinds of issues. CH will continue to claim that it's done all it needs to and that GW doesn't have a case - this is a defendant's usual approach (and it's normally easier for defendants because it's up to the plaintiff to prove its case, while the defendant throws up roadblocks). You cannot read much into this about who is right and who is wrong. It is possible that GW are deliberately stringing this out in the hope of putting pressure on CH (another common tactic, particularly for parties which aren't worried about legal costs); it's also possible that GW are struggling to make out their case. That's about it.

Tailgunner wrote:It is possible that GW are deliberately stringing this out in the hope of putting pressure on CH (another common tactic, particularly for parties which aren't worried about legal costs)

But why? CHS are Pro Bono, GW are simply costing themselves money.

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

Tailgunner wrote:It is possible that GW are deliberately stringing this out in the hope of putting pressure on CH (another common tactic, particularly for parties which aren't worried about legal costs)

But why? CHS are Pro Bono, GW are simply costing themselves money.

Because law suits take up management time and energy as well as money. And CH has to be careful that anything it does doesn't give GW an opening. A lot of civil proceedings aren't about who's actually wrong or right - very few actions ever get to the point of being decided by a judge. The litigation process is simply a means to an end.

nkelsch wrote:

-Loki- wrote:

I seem to recall mention that something of theirs actually had part of a GW kit in it for the basis, so it was a recast GW part. Might have been the Tervigon kit. Which that might be referring to.

I can see how the old threads and pictures of the sculpting process and the bragging CH did on dakka for years could give GW the impression they admitted to access and copying GW stuff. Especially when GW parts were used as blanks for recasting and images with GW models parts were labeled COPYRIGHT Chapterhouse.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/258438.page


Seems confusing for us non-lawyers...?

When companies legally make unlicensed Iphone cases don't you believe they size those cases with an actual Iphone?-This isn't any different. And yet when you compare it to the production pieces, they didn't copy any GW bits, they used their own blanks designed to fit the same interface.

aka_mythos wrote:

When companies legally make unlicensed Iphone cases don't you believe they size those cases with an actual Iphone?-This isn't any different. And yet when you compare it to the production pieces, they didn't copy any GW bits, they used their own blanks designed to fit the same interface.

The copyrighted image from CH shows GS sculpted on GW copyrighted parts. Just because CH has since realized they can't do that doesn't mean CH didn't start with illegal recasts... No one knows hence the lawsuit.

The Image you show is a different sculpt than what was in the original picture. It may be that the parts sculpted on GW parts never made it to production, or maybe they did and they quickly remade it? No one will know but it doesn't mean GW is lying or perjured themselves... That is the whole issue. I don't see how anyone can be like "GW is clearly lying" when stuff like this exists all over the internet and 'doubt' of origins of some pieces and the process to production can be called into question. They may not have the right to discovery of CHs process but they certainly do have the right to level accusations made based off images like this.