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.

filbert wrote:The point being is that there is enough pie to go around (and plenty of pieces of pie that GW don't want to bother with) without them having to jump to legal factor 10 and sue everything in sight.

Actually, making Space Hulk a limited edition, only sold in GW stores, has lost GW more profit than all aftermarket sales combined

Scott-S6 wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Wouldn't be for sure if they labeled it alien birthing queen. But since they named it after something GW created (not sure on how IP works in regards to translation from print to tangible items) there might be something to it. Or not

No argument on that - I think that is EXACTLY what has got them into this position.

Compare to these guys: http://www.the2blackdragons.com/english/hauptseiten/black_dragons_english.htm They're very careful not to use trademarks.
Dark Elves = Elves of the Night
Skaven = Ratmen
etc

wow those are really nice miniatures........ skirmishing dual pistol wielding witch hunters...... can't lose with that!

Kroothawk wrote:4.) It is a hobby that should encourage creativity among kids and adults, the more the better. Sending lawyers out to bully around, hunt down small aftermarket companies and decrease the diversity of "the hobby" is not helpfull and eventually damaging GW's reputation as a toy soldier manufacturer.

Here's the thing, though: Couldn't you also say:
Starting a company producing aftermarket parts specifically targeted at the customers of a particular game owned by another company and marketed as being parts for that game by skirting as closely as you can around IP laws, rather than producing a new and unique game and miniatures range of your own decreases the diversity of "the hobby" and is eventually damaging to GW's reputation as a toy soldier manufacturer due to your inferior product being marketed as a part of their game?


That's essentially the angle that GW are taking on this. It's not about stifling creativity. It's about people making things for GW's games when they have no legal right to do so.

The 'hobby' of wargaming is not just about GW. There is an infinite range of possibilities out there for a creative individual to produce science fiction and fantasy miniatures. Building a new and unique game and/or range of miniatures increases diversity in the hobby. Being just another company selling parts for Games Workshop's games does not. It just increases the range of parts available for one particular corner of it.


I should point out that the above isn't intended as a criticism of Chapterhouse, or any other company producing add-ons or miniatures intended for use in GW's games. I'm a fan of all good miniatures, whether new and revolutionary or not. Just trying to put a little perspective on the whole 'stifling creativity and diversity' argument.

Here is why GW will lose this court case

If you allow GW to win, then you set the precedecent of other companies to disallow any third party to make parts for their model.

This is not allowed in the United States....Monopoly rules are here for a reason.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:Here is why GW will lose this court case

If you allow GW to win, then you set the precedecent of other companies to disallow any third party to make parts for their model.

This is not allowed in the United States....Monopoly rules are here for a reason.

And again, you're talking ridiculousness.

There's no "monopoly" here. GW makes products for their game systems. They control the IP for their games.

The only way this would be a "monopoly" is if GW somehow was able to prove that no other company was allowed to make tabletop miniature games ever, even if they use non-GW IP.

This is nothing to do with Monopoly rules. Being the only company producing miniatures for your own miniatures game does not make a monopoly... that would require GW controlling the entire miniatures wargaming market.

Kanluwen wrote:

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:Here is why GW will lose this court case

If you allow GW to win, then you set the precedecent of other companies to disallow any third party to make parts for their model.

This is not allowed in the United States....Monopoly rules are here for a reason.

And again, you're talking ridiculousness.

There's no "monopoly" here. GW makes products for their game systems. They control the IP for their games.

The only way this would be a "monopoly" is if GW somehow was able to prove that no other company was allowed to make tabletop miniature games ever, even if they use non-GW IP.

in that case then....where did you get that avatar??? did you ask GW for premission for that artwork or any other company?

What happen to AT&T.....that right they had to split their company into three diiferent parts.....What about MircoSoft samething happen to them. Don't tell me that is couldn't happen to GW.

Doesn't really matter to me.

I imagine GW is going to win due to company size.


As for CH, most ive ever done is looked, theyve never really released anything that i like.


And its obvious its all based off GW art and models, even using GW models with their bits on them for advertisment to sell theirs.


and yea, not very good poll options, im on the middle of.. doesnt effect me either way.

filbert wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

6.) If GW continues to go the despot way and fire creative minds (Rick Priestley et al), muzzle the remaining staff, tolerate mismanagement by managers not familiar with the toy industry, ignore marketing, ignore sales and customer number decline, ignore customer feedback, and bully everyone in the toy industry, they deserve the image of the "bad company" and deserve the decline. GW is strong enough to go the freedom loving way though, freeing their staff of current chains and encouraging creativity in their own company and in the aftermarket as well, making everyone and "the hobby" profit from it. This is called synergy.

That's about it.

This is what I have been trying to say, albeit 100% more eloquently. Cheers Kroot! The point being is that there is enough pie to go around (and plenty of pieces of pie that GW don't want to bother with) without them having to jump to legal factor 10 and sue everything in sight.

Not saying you aren't right that there is enough of the pie to go around..... the point is when I bake a pie I get to decide who eats it not some random other person.

(IF) CH ever create their own base models or even as far as a system for the ( add ons ) they created , i would have some sort of sympathy for the law suit.

But as of right now , arnt most of their add ons made specifically tailored towards GW? which is in direct competition against GW products? ( for example we could be using FW , or kit bash with GW kits )

As a consumer i understand CH do make some products arnt offered by GW... yet that in noway makes them "right"
We can argue all we want about how CH change the name/ look of their products , but im sure all of us know by now CH mirrored units created by GW in their codex...

If GW doesnt exist at all , what would CH be making right now? They certainly wont be able to make majority of the product they have atm. ( of course they probably would be making add ons for the next big game system )
If the consumers and CH really likes the existing product , then do it the right way... get permission from GW. If they cant , then thats unfortunate. But still doesnt make stealing right.

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

mrblacksunshine_1978 wrote:Here is why GW will lose this court case

If you allow GW to win, then you set the precedecent of other companies to disallow any third party to make parts for their model.

This is not allowed in the United States....Monopoly rules are here for a reason.

And again, you're talking ridiculousness.

There's no "monopoly" here. GW makes products for their game systems. They control the IP for their games.

The only way this would be a "monopoly" is if GW somehow was able to prove that no other company was allowed to make tabletop miniature games ever, even if they use non-GW IP.

in that case then....where did you get that avatar??? did you ask GW for premission for that artwork or any other company?

What happen to AT&T.....that right they had to split their company into three diiferent parts.....What about MircoSoft samething happen to them. Don't tell me that is couldn't happen to GW.

Umm dude just because you don't get it I will lay it out for you....... AT&T was broken up because it controlled pretty much all of the telephone lines in the United States (no really like all of them) that means no other telephone companies. And actually nothing happened to Microsoft. Look it up they "lost" their case sort of and didn't have to really change anything.

Now are you ready for the difference? GW is not even close to the only miniature company you can buy miniatures from. Perhaps you have never heard of:

Mantic
Privateer Press
Wargames Foundry
Old Glory
Battlefront Miniatures
Immortal Miniatures
Crusader
Wizards of the Coast
RAFM
Conquest Miniatures
GHQ
Navwar

do I really need to go on?

I hope that both parties can some to an agreement in which Chapterhouse Studios are able to continue providing us with quality third party parts and where GW is able to protect their IP. I think that the world is big enough for the both of them to continue to exist and fuel our hobby.

insaniak wrote:Here's the thing, though: Couldn't you also say:
Starting a company producing aftermarket parts specifically targeted at the customers of a particular game owned by another company and marketed as being parts for that game by skirting as closely as you can around IP laws, rather than producing a new and unique game and miniatures range of your own decreases the diversity of "the hobby" and is eventually damaging to GW's reputation as a toy soldier manufacturer due to your inferior product being marketed as a part of their game?

That's essentially the angle that GW are taking on this. It's not about stifling creativity. It's about people making things for GW's games when they have no legal right to do so.

Counterquestion: Should all computer game companies sell their games together with their own computer operating system?

1.) I don't care if Reaper, Rackham, Privateer, Mantic, Avatars of War and who else invent another small skirmishing game, often written by a former GW employee. I use their miniatures for Warhammer and 40k (plus RPGs). Not every local gaming community is large enough to have enough gamers for 15 different tabletop rule sets (or people rich enough to buy rules for 15 different games and good enough to memorize all of them). GW games are the most widely spread standard for tabletop games, whether they are perfect or not. So I use these.

2.) I buy a lot non-GW models and conversion parts. And that is not to save money, as I also use Forge World models. I buy them for their quality and creative achievement. This includes products I bought from Chapterhouse. I can assure you that some have better quality than GW or FW products. Hey, even Daniel Cockersell from Forge World made a Chimera for Maelstrom Games in line with Beatman and Skaven monster stand-ins, probably because higher up managers prohibited it to be sold within GW/FW/Warhammer Forge.

3.) If you think that noone has the legal right to sell aftermarket products, look at the tires of your car and think again. Saying that Goodyear should build its own cars instead of leeching on Ford's popularity is not a valid argument nor even a sound legal advice.

Kroothawk wrote:Counterquestion: Should all computer game companies sell their games together with their own computer operating system?

If their intention in selling computer software was to encourage diversity, then most certainly they should. I suspect that's not the intention of most video game creators, though.

I can assure you that some have better quality than GW or FW products.

FWIW, I've never claimed that everything not made by GW is inferior.

3.) If you think that noone has the legal right to sell aftermarket products, ...

I don't. But I'm willing to take the comments from several lawyers in this thread that it's a murky area in the law as a sign that it's a murky area in the law.

According to lawyers all areas of law are murky.

I really don't see the issue with just selling aftermarket goods that require a product from X company that X company does not produce. Everyone benefits.

The issue with CHS is that they are making stand alone products and using copyrighted images.

i want gw to win because if they lose they might have to close stores or stop making models and that would be bad

goldlinkdawg wrote:i want gw to win because if they lose they might have to close stores or stop making models and that would be bad

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm fairly sure that the odds of this happening are tiny at best.

Amaya wrote:According to lawyers all areas of law are murky.
I really don't see the issue with just selling aftermarket goods that require a product from X company that X company does not produce. Everyone benefits.
The issue with CHS is that they are making stand alone products and using copyrighted images.

Well, there is no question that selling aftermarket products is NOT illegal per se.

And AFAIK there are only 2 stand alone products by CHS currently, and both don't resemble anything by GW.
And I am not aware of any GW copyrighted image on the CHS website.

Kroothawk wrote:

filbert wrote:The point being is that there is enough pie to go around (and plenty of pieces of pie that GW don't want to bother with) without them having to jump to legal factor 10 and sue everything in sight.

Actually, making Space Hulk a limited edition, only sold in GW stores, has lost GW more profit than all aftermarket sales combined

In the words of former British Prime Minister...put up or shut up. Or at least admit you asertation is merely personal opinion?

Mr Mystery wrote:In the words of former British Prime Minister...put up or shut up. Or at least admit you asertation is merely personal opinion?

Well, difficult to give exact numbers of an alternative timeline.
But doubling customer numbers outside UK with standard marketing tools is a piece of cake.
Just ask how many veterans were drawn into 40k by last editions Space Hulk/Space Crusade. MB's marketing worked!
And it's no secret that current creative staff feels hog-tied by higher management.

Need another example: Dissolving Black Industries when their newest product line (Dark Heresy) just sold out before release. Now IIRC second biggest RPG line. Also millions of certain dollars lost for no reason at all. Instead they spend huge resources for keeping sales limited to a small declining niche, firing good people left and right just to prevent natural growth of the market.

Anyone who thinks that monopolistic or unfair and stifling business practices will not be raised as a counterclaim, I have one name for you: Microsoft.

Microsoft would have been busted up by the U.S DOJ if it had not cut a deal.

I do not necessarily think GW is Microsoft, however, I do think this is an equivalent analogy.

I rolled a D6, on a 4+ GW should win.

It was a 5....

Was it a GW die?

Eldanar wrote:Anyone who thinks that monopolistic or unfair and stifling business practices will not be raised as a counterclaim, I have one name for you: Microsoft.

Microsoft would have been busted up by the U.S DOJ if it had not cut a deal.

I do not necessarily think GW is Microsoft, however, I do think this is an equivalent analogy.

How so?

GW only has a monopoly on GW games and thats it, and thats all they seem to want. They do nothing unfair or stifling to PP, Malifaux or any other TTG company.

Comparing GW's situation with Microsofts would be more accurate if : GW was making gaming tables and was the damn near sole provider of said tables and manufacturing them to somehow prevent other gaming systems from operating on those tables, thereby "stifling" competition. Microsoft didn't get busted by the DOJ for being too big, but too controlling at the expense of the competition to the point where they literally couldn't compete.

Wanting complete control on your own product is not monopolistic or stifling to competition who make product of a similiar nature (Ie other game companies).

Eldanar wrote:Anyone who thinks that monopolistic or unfair and stifling business practices will not be raised as a counterclaim, I have one name for you: Microsoft.

Microsoft would have been busted up by the U.S DOJ if it had not cut a deal.

I do not necessarily think GW is Microsoft, however, I do think this is an equivalent analogy.

Except it's a terribly wrong analogy.

Microsoft was broken up because of packaging their browser and OS with computer bundles, and making it virtually impossible for the computers to run without them.

GW is not forcing you to play Warhammer or 40k or Lord of the Rings if you want to play a miniatures game.

This is more equivalent to the Xbox 360 v. PS3 v. Nintendo Wii. They're each completely separate systems, with completely different benefits.

Again:
There is no monopoly claim, at all, that is valid in this case. GW does not own the genre of "Tabletop Wargaming". They own Warhammer/40k/LOTR and the models/properties associated with those game systems and universes.

What I don't get is why GW hasn't embraced the good aftermarket modelers, particularly for conversion kits for models GW doesn't produce. After all, one of the biggest problems facing GW is that they don't have the resources to design good models for all of their ranges in the time frame that the players want. So rather than fight the "parasites" who fill in the gaps, why not embrace them in a way that allows GW some control of what's going on?

They could create an official licensing system. Licensed aftermarket modelers could get permission to use GW IP in exchange maybe for very small royalties and veto authority over designs (so that no one can make a design that threatens the company's image like an overly graphic mini or a mini of terrible quality, and so that no one makes a model of a product GW is planning to release in the next month or so).

These licensed suppliers could even be sold in GW stores at the discretion of the manager (depending on space) but they would "count as" GW products for the purposes of entry in official GW-sponsored tournaments. Officially licensed after-marketers could even be promoted by GW employees when customers are looking for a model that GW does not produce but an aftermarket company does. That would give companies some incentive to join the program while keeping GW in control of their IP, and I imagine the lost sales to GW would be minimal. It could even grow their sales if GW encouraged the right models.

They could even make a clause in the agreement where aftermarket models of truly exceptional quality can be bought outright by GW and made into official models, and if a particular licensed sculptor consistently puts out work of exceptional quality they could be invited to join the team. It could become a system where GW is effectively training sculptors without paying for it, getting the holes in their lines filled for free, and getting more kits sold because players need them for conversions with aftermarket parts. Meanwhile licensed sculptors may lose a couple percent of sales revenue in royalty fees, but they could have the freedom to operate without being sued and their product would have an official connection with GW allowing them greater exposure and basically doing their advertising for them. It frees sculptors who love the GW IP to work to make the hobby better, with the hope of one day making an awesome model that becomes an official GW product with a big payoff.

It's win-win-win. Good for GW, good for the aftermarket people, and good for the customers.

Or GW could just sue everyone.

JOHIRA wrote:What I don't get is why GW hasn't embraced the good aftermarket modelers, particularly for conversion kits for models GW doesn't produce. After all, one of the biggest problems facing GW is that they don't have the resources to design good models for all of their ranges in the time frame that the players want. So rather than fight the "parasites" who fill in the gaps, why not embrace them in a way that allows GW some control of what's going on?

They did. They started on off-shoot company specifically to release cool aftermarket parts, vehicle variants and collectibles that fall outside the scope of GW's normal production schedule. They called it 'Forgeworld'...

Third-party licensing is an option, but would have its own headaches.

I don't hope for any side. Thats silly. However, chapterhouse was in the wrong making money of GW's ideas. Tough.

insaniak wrote:

JOHIRA wrote:What I don't get is why GW hasn't embraced the good aftermarket modelers, particularly for conversion kits for models GW doesn't produce. After all, one of the biggest problems facing GW is that they don't have the resources to design good models for all of their ranges in the time frame that the players want. So rather than fight the "parasites" who fill in the gaps, why not embrace them in a way that allows GW some control of what's going on?

They did. They started on off-shoot company specifically to release cool aftermarket parts, vehicle variants and collectibles that fall outside the scope of GW's normal production schedule. They called it 'Forgeworld'...

Forgeworld isn't exactly the same thing though, because Forgeworld is part of GW. Besides, isn't it against the rules now for Forgeworld to produce any model that's already in the codex?

I would assume not, it's more Forgeworld has it's own plans. After all, they still release Dreadnoughts.

But as for a Third Party, Licensed Company. As an idea it's certainly interesting, but I can see a few problems with it. First up. you have to pay for the license. I don't see GW letting that one for for Peanuts. This means it would have to be someone with significant capital. And GW would no doubt want their cut of the money coming in. And the quality would be demanding. Not just any machine, it would have to be of similar quality to GW's. So whilst it's not a bad idea, I'm not sure it's terribly practical.

And now for an analogy. GW is like a Parent, trying to satisfy a couple of dozen very spoiled children (bare with!). Sure, you can ask a few of them what they want for dinner, and they'll be happy, but then there'll be some who didn't want that for dinner, and kick off over it. They literally cannot make everyone happy. The comparisson to spoiled children is to give you an idea of the demands made, rather than looking to insult anyone!