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.

Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.

Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

A monopoly is a single seller of some product, it doesn't mean that they're using unfair practices or are doing something illegal, unethical, or immoral.

So what you're saying is that per the Sherman Antitrust Act, Apple is in violation of anti-monopoly laws because they are the exclusive seller of legal iPods, iPhones, and iPads.

"Monopoly" and the "Sherman Antitrust Act" have a very specific connotation with the laymen of the Interwebs. It's not a good one, so I think I can safely say that this is not what was being referenced.

mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled

Aerethan wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:That's not necessarily the same thing as a monopoly though.

Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

This made me lol.

The distinction is that its perfectly arguable that they're crushing competition through fair practices... as much as I disagree with the sentiment.

The Grundel wrote:

mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled

It isn't even just exclusive control, the Government also deems any company with a disproportionately significant market share that leverages that to gain benefits beyond what should be expected as being a monopoly. Basically if you act like you have a monopoly its a monopoly even if you don't control everything.

The Grundel wrote:

mo·nop·o·ly -noun, plural -lies
1. exclusive control
2. company having exclusive control over a commodity or service
3. commodity or service so controlled

Nice dictionary quote. And when Games Workshop owns Privateer Press, Wyrd and everyone else, they will have a monopoly. Right now? They don't. Go read the dictionary more.

Right now, they have a monopoly on their own products. Just like a lot of other companies.

Kroothawk wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Monopoly means that they're squashing all competition through unfair practices.

You mean ... like ... with unfair C&D letters and lawsuits?

I didn't read this one originally, but here's a reply to it now.

"Unfair C&D letters and lawsuits" is currently what's under review. Does GW in fact own what they claim to own?
We do not know, under United States law.


The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.

Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.

Kanluwen wrote:So what you're saying is that per the Sherman Antitrust Act, Apple is in violation of anti-monopoly laws because they are the exclusive seller of legal iPods, iPhones, and iPads.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

Kanluwen wrote:"Monopoly" and the "Sherman Antitrust Act" have a very specific connotation with the laymen of the Interwebs. It's not a good one, so I think I can safely say that this is not what was being referenced.

Actually it appeared that the poster was making an analogy, not a direct allegation of GW being a monopoly.

But honestly, it doesn't matter, because there haven't been any allegations in the case to support this argument one way or the other.

Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.

Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.

Broad brush there Kan.

I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.

Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base. There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.














'Cause blank spaces in a post are cool (sorry, catching up on my Dr Who via Netflix)

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.

Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.

Broad brush there Kan.

I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.

You must have missed my point.

There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.

Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base.

Difference is that Battlefront can't control production of WWII models. Technically, they could go into a weird scale I guess and create an artificial issue--but it's not the same.

There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.

I have. Less expensive does not mean "good" or "well made".

You'll notice though that I explicitly stated "in terms of monetary prices" though. Value is really in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a goofy lookin', Rogue Traderesque piece--that's their choice.
Me? If I want aftermarket parts which actually look good(in my opinion)--I'll stick with Forge World. I pay more--but at the same time, I know that if there's a problem with the product I can get it replaced without a hassle. I also know that this is a product which(in the case of aftermarket infantry parts, not vehicle parts) will require minimal effort.

Kanluwen wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:The funny thing to me is that if a company were to spring up selling "aftermarket parts" for Mantic models, there would very likely be a queue of people (many of them posting in here disparaging Games Workshop for its practices) playing Interwebs Lawyer Mans insisting that Mantic go after them.

Well, unless the parts are cheap(in terms of monetary prices, not material costs) and/or appeal to a certain crowd who want something right now.

Broad brush there Kan.

I really doubt there would be people throwing fits. The GW fanbois base is strong though, so I'd excuse your generalization.

You must have missed my point.

There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.

Its kind of like mixing Peter Pig 15's or Command Decision with Battlefront Flames of War: it's all good and expands the player base.

Difference is that Battlefront can't control production of WWII models. Technically, they could go into a weird scale I guess and create an artificial issue--but it's not the same.

There are good, less expensive and well made parts for GW. You just have to open your mind to them.

I have. Less expensive does not mean "good" or "well made".

You'll notice though that I explicitly stated "in terms of monetary prices" though. Value is really in the eye of the beholder. If someone wants a goofy lookin', Rogue Traderesque piece--that's their choice.
Me? If I want aftermarket parts which actually look good(in my opinion)--I'll stick with Forge World. I pay more--but at the same time, I know that if there's a problem with the product I can get it replaced without a hassle. I also know that this is a product which(in the case of aftermarket infantry parts, not vehicle parts) will require minimal effort.

No, didnt miss your point. The flaming crap is your perception though.

And generics dont need license. Only direct copies do.

CH's pads look great IMO, especially when making pre-heresy SM. As do Pig Iron masked Kolonial helmets on IG Cadian bodies.

I dont "need" to pay more for something in order to feel good about it. FW makes some really neat stuff, but they are way over priced as is their shipping rate, but that's just my opinion.

It's almost like guns. I love my Bravo Company AR-15, but some people insist on having ponies rolled on their lower receiver and only swear by their Colts. I'd put my BCM AR over their Colt's any day, and will come out on top despite having paid $3-400 less. I got way more gun for alot less.

And away we zoom, off topic.
Please take your argument or quality discussion to another thread so this one doesn't get locked.

Thanks.

agnosto wrote:And away we zoom, off topic.
Please take your argument or quality discussion to another thread so this one doesn't get locked.

Thanks.

Your right. So, what news from the CH/GW front?

Nothing new. The parties met on 11/7 and were ordered to provide a revised discovery plan to the judge by 11/16. I don't expect we'll have any movement on the case until after the holidays.

Kanluwen wrote:There is a perception of "well it's cheaper than the alternative provided by the company itself and it doesn't look like a flaming bag of crap, so it must be good!"--it does not negate the fact that it is usually being produced without a license.

You assume they even need a licence, they probably don't.

Third party car parts companies don't need licenses for body kits and addons for very specific car models. Why should that be any different for models? You know why? Because those addons require the purchase of said vehicle to begin with. Which is EXACTLY the same as their shoulder pads, weapons, and vehicle doors/armor. You HAVE to buy GW's product in order to use 99% of CH's stuff. This reason is why this stupid lawsuit pisses me off. Heaven forbid GW make more money.

I know I wouldn't have bought a Storm Raven if not for CH's conversion kit.

Aerethan wrote:Third party car parts companies don't need licenses for body kits and addons for very specific car models. Why should that be any different for models? You know why? Because those addons require the purchase of said vehicle to begin with. Which is EXACTLY the same as their shoulder pads, weapons, and vehicle doors/armor. You HAVE to buy GW's product in order to use 99% of CH's stuff. This reason is why this stupid lawsuit pisses me off. Heaven forbid GW make more money.

Oh the ever-present "car parts companies" analogy.

This analogy pisses me off to no end.
Why? Because, without fail, it all comes down to people making a statement of "buying the addons requires the purchase of X to begin with".

That is irrelevant. Really, it is.

The comparison of "third party car parts" to "third party GW parts" is a fallacious one. A car company does not create all those parts in-house, for the most part. They take prebuilt parts from manufacturers whom they contract to build said parts and combine them into the finished product. In many cases though, modifying the car can potentially void your service warranty depending upon the modifications you've done.

The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't. If you bought a Ford Mustang "kit", with all parts manufactured in house by Ford and all parts considered to be part of the "look and feel" of the Mustang it would be a very different situation if Dan's Car Shop started selling "Stallion" modification parts.

I see no difference between "build your own mustang" and building your own rhino. If at some stage in the process you decide to use 3rd party parts, good for you.

And the point stands that GW invariably profits from 99% of CH's sales. You cannot argue that, unless people are sculpting their own rhinos and space marines to use CH parts, which I highly doubt and would be less than 1% of users if at all.

Kanluwen wrote:
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't.

Uh... what? The vastest majority of CH's catalogue is swappable parts on a nearly fully built GW model. Rhino doors for rhinos, Shoulder pad and weapon swaps for Marines, conversion kits for Chimeras and Storm Ravens that all require you to actually buy a Chimera and Storm Raven.

I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.

Do you see the issue?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
The comparison would be valid if Games Workshop provided a fully built model with some easily swappable parts. They don't.

Uh... what? The vastest majority of CH's catalogue is swappable parts on a nearly fully built GW model. Rhino doors for rhinos, Shoulder pad and weapon swaps for Marines, conversion kits for Chimeras and Storm Ravens that all require you to actually buy a Chimera and Storm Raven.

Read the posting again. Games Workshop does not provide a fully built model.

Why does a shoulder pad that just so happens to fit a space marine, which contains NO GW ip on them require a license? If I design a shield to use on all my HE spearmen does that mean I need a GW license to produce my shields as well? What about the custom bases I made for my HE? Do I need a license for those?

Your argument is rather broad, as ANYTHING that can be used on GW parts must be licensed, which is just silly.

Aerethan wrote:Why does a shoulder pad that just so happens to fit a space marine, which contains NO GW ip on them require a license? If I design a shield to use on all my HE spearmen does that mean I need a GW license to produce my shields as well? What about the custom bases I made for my HE? Do I need a license for those?

Your argument is rather broad, as ANYTHING that can be used on GW parts must be licensed, which is just silly.

No, it's really not silly. What's the point of giving owners of an intellectual property rights if they can't redistribute those rights as they see fit?

So you DO think I should have to have a license for my own sculpts that I use on GW pieces? So what is the point of making IP if I can't use it without a license from some corporation?

Aerethan wrote:So you DO think I should have to have a license for my own sculpts that I use on GW pieces? So what is the point of making IP if I can't use it without a license from some corporation?

Are you making the shields entirely from scratch or just putting a design on them? Are you reselling your sculpts to everyone who wants them as a money making endeavor?

These are kind of the important questions which your argument conveniently ignores.

My shields are scratchbuilt, as are the bases, and yes I have sold some bases for money. I see no reason why GW should get a cut if people decide to use my products for GW games. Should Micro Art Studios need a license to make their bases? Should MaxMini need a license to make 28mm weapons and heads?

I agree that CH should have been vague in their wording on the website, but that is all I agree with.

agnosto wrote:Nothing new. The parties met on 11/7 and were ordered to provide a revised discovery plan to the judge by 11/16. I don't expect we'll have any movement on the case until after the holidays.

I'm confused - if they have a deadline of 16/11 to meet, which passed a week ago, why would it take so long to get more news?

Kanluwen wrote:
These are kind of the important questions which your argument conveniently ignores.

Actually this assumes that GW can even show ownership of things like rhino doors and shoulderpads, which the lawyer-ly types in this thread (and, apparently, GW, CH, and the Court) have identified as something of a sticking point in all these copyright and trademark infringement proceedings.

Can the design of a shield that has been used for hundreds of years be copyrighted? I'm guessing no.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.

Why does someone like CHS need a license to produce shoulder pads compatible with GW models when companies like Cervini and Trufiber do not have a license agreement to make body panels designed to fit Ford Mustangs? In both cases, a third party manufacturer is designing a specific part who's purpose is to modify the appearance of an existing product manufactured by someone else, and is marketed as such. Does CME Auto Company, LTD need a license agreement to manufacture alternators for about 15 different automobiles and advertise that these alternators fit those vehicles? Assuming the stock alternator is manufactured by some other company, does CME need permission to make a replacement part?

And that's even ignoring the entire issue that GW has yet to even show that they have ownership of the IP and copyrights that they have claimed thus far in this case.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm not arguing that they do not profit from it. What you're failing to realize though is "well you still need to buy the kit" is not really a defense to potentially reproducing material which needs to be properly licensed out to produce.

Do you see the issue?

Do Scibor and others need a licence to produce? Going to get on their case soon?