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.

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

I'd probably have to dig a bit, but I'm pretty sure you can patent game rules. I think there would have to be some physical component of the game to avoid the "abstract idea" limitation. (35 USC 101 rejection, nonpatentable subject matter, see Bilski)

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

Like I said, I was curious, and thought I'd share. You're right that the CH case has nothing to do with patents.

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

Unless they've amended their complaint it's all about copyrights. Trademarks and copyrights don't need to be registered in order to be protected. Even if GW hasn't received a registered trademark for the term "Space Marine Rhino," they are making and selling goods under that mark and to sell a toy under that name would be trademark infringement.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

biccat wrote:

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

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

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

Definitely not true. Look at Dungeons and Dragons, and the OGL that WOTC allowed people to publish under for version 3.0 and 3.5, and how they tightened that up with 4th edition and companies had to purchase a liscenese to product products for it. And WOTC has got copyrights on all the MTG rules and mechanics.

spaceelf wrote:I find this so ironic. If GW was not so tight lipped about its releases and prototypes then this would not be a problem for them at all. GW really does have a communication problem, they just do not realize it.

Actually, if the OP's story is true this would explain why GW has become progressively MORE secretive; to prevent competitors from rushing models into production in order to claim GW's models are infringing on their copyrights.

biccat wrote:

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

I'd probably have to dig a bit, but I'm pretty sure you can patent game rules. I think there would have to be some physical component of the game to avoid the "abstract idea" limitation. (35 USC 101 rejection, nonpatentable subject matter, see Bilski)

Ome games have mechanical devices in them, so maybe. GW only do dice, rulers and models though.

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

Unless they've amended their complaint it's all about copyrights. Trademarks and copyrights don't need to be registered in order to be protected. Even if GW hasn't received a registered trademark for the term "Space Marine Rhino," they are making and selling goods under that mark and to sell a toy under that name would be trademark infringement.

Okay, I thought you needed to register trademarks but now I look into it there's a difference between registered and unregistered trademarks. And the laws differ between the US and UK. I'll leave to to the experts beyond this...

Despite being on a new thread am still convinced that the idea of competitors waiting anxiously for news then screaming to the design team and sculptors, "GO GO GO!!!"
is highly unlikely

biccat wrote:

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

Unless they've amended their complaint it's all about copyrights. Trademarks and copyrights don't need to be registered in order to be protected. Even if GW hasn't received a registered trademark for the term "Space Marine Rhino," they are making and selling goods under that mark and to sell a toy under that name would be trademark infringement.

While you can protect trademarks without federal registration (Illinois in particular still has a state trademark registry), your rights are pretty seriously limited without registration (see 15 USC 1111).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mikhaila wrote:Definitely not true. Look at Dungeons and Dragons, and the OGL that WOTC allowed people to publish under for version 3.0 and 3.5, and how they tightened that up with 4th edition and companies had to purchase a liscenese to product products for it. And WOTC has got copyrights on all the MTG rules and mechanics.

You can't copyright the mechanics of a game. You can, however, protect the expression of the mechanics via copyright.

To protect the actual mechanics of play, you turn to patents. And there have been some game-related patents covering actual mechanics, including several by WotC to protect Magic (e.g., RE37,957 "Trading card game method of play"), which they used to sue Pokemon/Nintendo back in 2003. They actually patenting "tapping."

1. A method of playing games involving two or more players, the method being suitable for games having rules for game play that includes instructions on drawing, playing, and discarding game components, and a reservoir of multiple copies of a plurality of game components, the method comprising the steps of:
each player constructing their own library of a predetermined number of game components by examining and selecting game components from the reservoir of game components;
each player obtaining an initial hand of a predetermined number of game components by shuffling the library of game components and drawing at random game components from the player's library of game components; and
each player executing turns in sequence with other players by drawing, playing, and discarding game components in accordance with the rules until the game ends, said step of executing a turn comprises:
(a) making one or more game components from the player's hand of game components available for play by taking the one or more game components from the player's hand and placing the one or more game components on a playing surface; and
(b) bringing into play one or more of the available game components by: (i) selecting one or more game components; and (ii) designating the one or more game components being brought into play by rotating the one or more game components from an original orientation to a second orientation.

Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW. If CHS have caused a slow down/halt in GW product release because they want to be bloody minded and not play the game like other 3rd parties. They deserve all the hate that will be heading their way. CHS are scoring a massive own goal ultimately and I hope they pay the price for their stupidity. No love for CHS from this callsign at this point in time.

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Any judge in the USA with half a brain is applying the relevant statutes, and not relying on the sort of gut hatred your post seems to indicate.

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW. If CHS have caused a slow down/halt in GW product release because they want to be bloody minded and not play the game like other 3rd parties. They deserve all the hate that will be heading their way. CHS are scoring a massive own goal ultimately and I hope they pay the price for their stupidity. No love for CHS from this callsign at this point in time.

Have people like you ever thought that GW might be the ones who are wrongfully trying to enforce their 'rights'. It isn't the fault of CHS that GW have (supposedly) chosen to change their release schedule. GW could have avoided all this by not attempting to sue.

If it all blows up in their face they have only themselves to blame.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Any judge in the USA with half a brain is applying the relevant statutes, and not relying on the sort of gut hatred your post seems to indicate.

If GW's 'strategy' is to hold up releases and make people direct the blame towards CHS it's certainly working. I find the the hatred towards CHS for what GW are (supposedly) doing bizarre. Clearly the solution is for CHS to roll over and go out of business for the sake of GW's release schedule. That would be the right thing to do.

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Too bad, half-brained jugdes are so hard to find nowadays.

Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

If CHS want to be bloody minded about it all and create sort of Jason Vs Goliath sympathy resulting in a problem with GW product release. Do they expect GW fans, collectors & hobbyists to be happy with them?

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Any judge in the USA with half a brain is applying the relevant statutes, and not relying on the sort of gut hatred your post seems to indicate.

"Gut hatred" isn't very helpful. No-one has an innate need to dislike any given mini/bitz manufacturer. They react to decisions those manufacturers have made and actions they've taken and decide how they feel about them. People seem to have a lot of problems with people expressing their personal reactions to the situation because they seem to think that these threads are some sort of proxy court where only dakkas finest legal minds can comment. I'm pretty sure people can distinguish between informed legal commentary and personal opinion without anyone screeching about "haters", "fanboys", or "apologists".

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

And where do you get this from? GW has certainly never announced such a policy, and has in the past sent out Cease & Desist letters to companies making figures that aren't labeled with any 40k/Fantasy-related name.

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

Happy to tolerate? They have no choice, their rights end somewhere. They certainly have a history of sending out enough C&Ds to give the impression that they are not happy with the existence of the rest of the hobby.

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

And where do you get this from? GW has certainly never announced such a policy, and has in the past sent out Cease & Desist letters to companies making figures that aren't labeled with any 40k/Fantasy-related name.

This thread actually. It's part of the very first post. If it is incorrect then maybe it should be removed?

plastictrees wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Any judge in the USA with half a brain is applying the relevant statutes, and not relying on the sort of gut hatred your post seems to indicate.

"Gut hatred" isn't very helpful. No-one has an innate need to dislike any given mini/bitz manufacturer. They react to decisions those manufacturers have made and actions they've taken and decide how they feel about them. People seem to have a lot of problems with people expressing their personal reactions to the situation because they seem to think that these threads are some sort of proxy court where only dakkas finest legal minds can comment. I'm pretty sure people can distinguish between informed legal commentary and personal opinion without anyone screeching about "haters", "fanboys", or "apologists".

Would you care to characterize the rest of Chimaera's post? Here it is:

Chimaera wrote:If CHS have caused a slow down/halt in GW product release because they want to be bloody minded and not play the game like other 3rd parties. They deserve all the hate that will be heading their way. CHS are scoring a massive own goal ultimately and I hope they pay the price for their stupidity. No love for CHS from this callsign at this point in time.

I don't see a lot of rational causal logic in there; I see a lot of vitriol.

I don't require everyone to post only educated legal commentary; I do, however, feel free to respond to posts which express opinions on the legal system, or what should happen therein.

Why couldnt have GW just released these models upon launch, or soon afterwards. This all would have been unnecessary. SMH.

Howard A Treesong wrote: GW could have avoided all this by not attempting to sue.

If you do not attempt to maintain control of your intellectual property, you are not allowed to claim it. They were forced into action by the law.

inquisitorlewis wrote:Why couldnt have GW just released these models upon launch, or soon afterwards. This all would have been unnecessary. SMH.

Chances are they never intended to release them, or were were willing to wait and see how sales of the line went. It's not like they put out the codex and there were instant Tervigon conversion kits around.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote: GW could have avoided all this by not attempting to sue.

If you do not attempt to maintain control of your intellectual property, you are not allowed to claim it. They were forced into action by the law.

Why even acknowledge their existence? If they make it clear they know about them and do nothing, well that might be a risk, but I'm pretty sure that big massive companies are not at risk of losing IP to little fleas they've never heard of.

Anyway as we are finding out now, GW don't seem so sure what they have rights over...

Chimaera wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

And where do you get this from? GW has certainly never announced such a policy, and has in the past sent out Cease & Desist letters to companies making figures that aren't labeled with any 40k/Fantasy-related name.

This thread actually. It's part of the very first post. If it is incorrect then maybe it should be removed?

As your punishment, you are now required to read all 46 pages of this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355433.page

By the end of it you may realise that GW is actually in the wrong on this one (as usual). You may also try and think for yourself for 5 minutes and realise that the OP's claims are completely ridiculous and if by any chance they are proven to be correct, then GW's legal advice team have completely "lost it" and aren't fit even to interpret the INAT FAQ, let alone US copyright law...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote: GW could have avoided all this by not attempting to sue.

If you do not attempt to maintain control of your intellectual property, you are not allowed to claim it. They were forced into action by the law.

Care to back it up with some actual laws? I find it very hard to understand how that can be true when so many rip-offs of actual brands and products exist in the world (not saying that CHS work is a rip-off, IMO they full fill a market need that GW doesn't even recognize was there to begin with).

So, now that they have sued the gak out of half the civilized world are afraid of getting sued back?. So much for the tough guys.


This is interested, so basically this royaly screwed their plans. If they go ahead and sue Chapter house and win, then they would basically expose themselves to the same lawsuits for every model they have not published one yet, if they lose they give a go ahead to any manufacturer out there to make models "compatible with". On the other hand, if they make massive releases for every new codex, its A much more expensive to produce and B royally screws their scheduled made that way so they would have something new and shiny every month. THe mother of all no win situation. And they got themselves into it.



LOL, Karma is a bitch and this is so damn hilarious.

PhantomViper wrote:

Chimaera wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Chimaera wrote:Correct me if I have this wrong but GW are happy to tolerate 3rd parties jumping on the badwagon so long as they make no direct reference to the IP in the game. Why is it CHS feel this is an unacceptable approach.

And where do you get this from? GW has certainly never announced such a policy, and has in the past sent out Cease & Desist letters to companies making figures that aren't labeled with any 40k/Fantasy-related name.

This thread actually. It's part of the very first post. If it is incorrect then maybe it should be removed?

As your punishment, you are now required to read all 46 pages of this thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/355433.page

By the end of it you may realise that GW is actually in the wrong on this one (as usual). You may also try and think for yourself for 5 minutes and realise that the OP's claims are completely ridiculous and if by any chance they are proven to be correct, then GW's legal advice team have completely "lost it" and aren't fit even to interpret the INAT FAQ, let alone US copyright law...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote: GW could have avoided all this by not attempting to sue.

If you do not attempt to maintain control of your intellectual property, you are not allowed to claim it. They were forced into action by the law.

Care to back it up with some actual laws? I find it very hard to understand how that can be true when so many rip-offs of actual brands and products exist in the world (not saying that CHS work is a rip-off, IMO they full fill a market need that GW doesn't even recognize was there to begin with).

That thread may be one for tomorrow but I will read it as quickly as I can then.

Maybe my original post was a bit animated but it doesn't seem to demand an outrageous amount of logic when viewing the CHS website to see what is before your eyes.

Samsumg VS Apple is a pretty big ongoing one. While it's all around patents you could argue that both companies are also trying to fulfill a need I guess. Actually the film and music industry is also a massive example of IP infringement in recent years against online file sharing and piracy. Again you could argue these sites were also fulfilling a need but they also cause major damage to the industries concerned.

Chimaera wrote:Maybe my original post was a bit animated but it doesn't seem to demand an outrageous amount of logic when viewing the CHS website to see what is before your eyes.

Samsumg VS Apple is a pretty big ongoing one. While it's all around patents you could argue that both companies are also trying to fulfill a need I guess. Actually the film and music industry is also a massive example of IP infringement in recent years against online file sharing and piracy. Again you could argue these sites were also fulfilling a need but they also cause major damage to the industries concerned.

Some legal situation are more complicated than an average lynch mob likes to have it
In Samsung vs. Apple for instance, Samsung makes the essential parts of the Apple Ipad and Apple just the design and marketing. And the lawsuit s only about the design. And the Chapterhouse lawsuit has nothing to do with product piracy. And making a Storm Raven conversion kit is not hurting GW sales, but promoting them. Most Chapterhouse products require you to spend 5-times or more on GW products than on Chapterhouse products.

Copying films and reproducing stuff covered by patents is nothing like the situation here.

If CHS were recasting GW stuff then that would be comparable, but that isn't remotely what they are doing.

Yeah, Janthkin is right on the rules front.

Game rules are very like recipes, legally speaking. The actual text used to explain the rules is protected by copyright, as is the actual text used to explain a recipe. But the actual rules themselves -- the agreed way in which you play the game -- are unprotected, just as is the method of making the recipe. So, as long as a 3rd party could come up with different text to describe the rules or recipe, they could release their own version, functionally identical but just different enough that they could get away with it.

You can of course trademark the name of your rules set ("Dungeons and Dragons", "Warhammer 40,000") or recipe ("Nigella's Fish Pie", "Delia's Sausage Stew"). That only stops other people naming their recipe or rules the same thing though -- it doesn't stop them reusing the recipe or rules set, if they alter the wording slightly. It's why you see so many recipes available online that have been taken from recipe books.

The OGL/d20 stuff with D&D 3/3.5 Edition is an interesting case. Although WotC deliberately opened up the rules, including allowing re-use of their copyrighted wording of many of the rules, it could be argued that no 3rd party d20 publishers actually needed licences unless they chose to use said exact wording, and unless they wanted to say outright "suitable for use with D&D 3". By signing up to a licence with WotC, they got certain benefits (no need to rewrite the rules; explicit agreement that they could claim compatibility) but also agreed to WotC's terms, including the term that WotC could terminate the contract at will, and the decency terms (introduced after the first d20 erotica book... I kid you not).

At least a couple of companies -- notably Necromancer Games -- actually produced d20-compatible material without a licence, quite successfully and without ever being sued by WotC.

Some companies happily used others' new game rules, even the ones that weren't designated Open Content, just by tweaking the wording slightly.

The tapping mechanic is indeed a patent of WotC's, though personally I doubt it would hold up to serious legal challenge. All it really does is act as a marker that that particular playing piece has been used, which to my mind is not especially innovative -- it's an obvious need in any game in which you can activate more than one playing piece in your turn.

Kroothawk wrote:

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

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

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

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

Well, this is what I think, happened:

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

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

KrootHawk,

I think your analysis is right on point!

Remember Mark Wells said GW's IP was their moat or fortress wall or some such nonsense - I wonder if their lawyers sat them down and gave them a honest assessment of their lawsuit and the true legal limits of IP. I think they freaked out!

Smitty0305 wrote:Patent Law says you can patent an Idea.

Patent law says you can patent an invention which is a bit different from an idea. It must be an idea not thought of and communicated publicly by anyone else in the world, not an idea that is obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the field, and an idea that you have formed concretely enough to write it down and coherently explain to others how to make it and use it.

mikhaila wrote:
Definitely not true. Look at Dungeons and Dragons, and the OGL that WOTC allowed people to publish under for version 3.0 and 3.5, and how they tightened that up with 4th edition and companies had to purchase a liscenese to product products for it. And WOTC has got copyrights on all the MTG rules and mechanics.

But also look how badly handled WOTC handled OGL, and also look how badly they they transitioned into the GSL, its early drafts which helped put people off and away from publishing in 4e, and further how 2-3 years in practially everyone has abandoned WOTC and their tightening up the license.

Straightsilver has already been called on his credibility re rumours / knowlege of GW operations, in this thread and others (see: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/330/362144.page#2750470 ), but no-one has seemed to acknowlege that.

This whole thread is continuing from a theory just he has put forward. I'm not sure why. The one non-hobby (and his hobby stuff is actually really cool!) statement he's made has been proven to be the completely wrong.

Not trying to have a go at him as such, but there's nothing here but smoke. No whispers, no rumours.