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: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.

However it is a very good one regardless of your feelings on the issue.

The issue of the 3rd party car pieces is that it is not illegal for them to be produced. Do they invalidate the warranty? Sometimes, I'll even give you a yes. Now look at the GW issue, does the use of 3rd party parts invalidate the 'warranty'? Yes it does, you are not allowed to use those converted figures in GW 'official' events or in GW shops. So there's your voiding. However, while all those car companies disavow their product after the modifications, they cannot legally stop the manufacture of the parts. GW are trying to do so, thats why this case is so interesting.

Now there is also a case to be considered over the use of 3rd party creations for the model market. Guess what, they're not illegal either. So which is it, is GW a model firm or a completed item firm?

Cheers

Andrew

There will always be a certain degree of latitude to discuss elements of this case in this thread, we're starting to wander a bit too far afield again.

Please keep everything on topic, and feel free to start a thread discussing particular theoretical minutiae elsewhere.

Thanks!

Kanluwen wrote:

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.

And yet, the car parts analogy fits in so well with the CH/GW debacle.

Direct parts are made under license. These are generally parts that are DIRECT COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL ITEM.*

After market add on parts do not need licensing as they ARE NOT DIRECT/EXACT COPIES OF AN ORIGINAL ITEM.*

*Emphasis added for those who dont quite get what everyone is trying to explain to them.

Well, let's just say: If not even GW lawyers can provide a formally correct accusation of Chapterhouse doings after almost a year, then it is far from obvious that Chapterhouse has done anything wrong. Guess you can't argue that away.

It's not hard to do so, actually. It's new territory for IP law.

We're starting to see it happen in modern military modeling where licensing is required for some things. It's not gone to court yet, but it started up with some things being no longer readily available as early as 2008ish. The only problem with the modern military modeling bit is that governments cannot, seemingly, claim IP on something they develop since the government is "of the people".

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?


...

The point is that a manufacturer does not need to licence the design of a product to make legal, compatible parts. Thus, "XX makes parts that fit a GW kit" is not a valid accusation of chicanery.

The relevance of "You have to buy the GW kit to use the parts" is only that GW is in a sense cutting off its nose to spite its face.

Which makes it a fallacious argument. It has no actual relevancy to the case, it's just an example of GW being a corporation (i.e. making decisions which seem incredibly stupid to outside views, but might make sense to the bean counters and CEO).

I'm not a lawyer, but I do like reading and find this subject fascinating:

Taken from the IPO's site:

[url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright/d-designright-qualify.htm]Are there any exceptions to Design Right?

Yes. Design features enabling one product to be functionally fitted or aesthetically matched (emphasis added) to another are excluded from protection. These so-called 'must-fit' and 'must-match' exceptions are influenced by the need to ensure that third party providers of spare parts should not be unfairly prevented from competing within the spare parts market.

Competitors cannot be stopped from copying any features of a protected design that enables their own design to be connected to or matched with existing equipment designed by someone else. However, competitors will infringe design right if they copy features of a protected design where there is no need to do so.[/url]

Under UK law Design Right covers 3-dimensional objects in part or in whole, and there's a specific exception which (I seem to recall reading) was made to let machine parts manufacturers make items that were the same as the original manufacturer's drawings without infringing the underlying copyright:



This is how you can buy a car door from someone besides the original car manufacturer that looks exactly the same as the original manufacturer's; if it didn't look the same, it wouldn't aesthetically match the car. According to the IPO, design right applies to unregistered designs. Search on the IPO's website and you'll find GW only has 5 or so actual registered designs, none of which are miniatures. On this basis, I'd argue shoulderpads and rhino doors are absolutely fair game in the UK. People are generally using the term copyright in this thread, but the copyright section of the IPO's site only discusses copyright in these terms :

Copyright can protect:

literary works, including novels, instruction manuals, computer programs, song lyrics, newspaper articles and some types of database
dramatic works, including dance or mime
musical works
artistic works, including paintings, engravings, photographs, sculptures, collages, architecture, technical drawings, diagrams, maps and logos
layouts or typographical arrangements used to publish a work, for a book for instance
recordings of a work, including sound and film
broadcasts of a work

and also:

Copyright does not protect ideas for a work. It is only when the work itself is fixed (emphasis added), for example in writing, that copyright automatically protects it. This means that you do not have to apply for copyright.

Based on all this, I think you would have a very tough time trying to stop someone making addons for GW stuff in the UK, as you'd only have to add the slightest extra bit to your blank space marine shoulderpad (which you'd have to successfully argue was an original design, and I'm pretty sure the that the plainer the item you're trying to argue is your design, in order to claim as many items as possible were infringing, the less likely you are to be able to defend it as an original design) and bang, it's not a copy of the fixed work. If you sold an absolutely plain shoulderpad, you're going to be more likely to find lots of pre-existing objects that were the same shape, then it's not an original design, then it's not protected.

I've highlighted the reference to sculpture as I believe sculpture in this instance refers to works of artistic merit, not artistic craftsmanship (this was very important in that case between Lucasarts and the guy making stormtrooper costumes from the original moulds). While I think most of us would argue for our plastic crack being art in a pub debate, most of GW's figures are playing pieces: they're sculpted from a design document to be mass produced and assembled to let you play the game: the WYSIWIG rule reinforces this. If the appearance of your model doesn't adhere to the rules, tourneys won't let you play with them. The rules inform the models, and the models exist to play the game. Whether the individual plays the game or just collects the models has no bearing on the intention of the manufacturer, and I reckon you'd be able to argue that while they're more detailed, ultimately they're no different from the boot in a game of monopoly: they're there as a functional item, and this is why I think the car parts analogy's accurate. There may be more room to argue when it comes to figures without rules, but with no incentive for people to buy 50 of them, why would you make addons for them?

Apologies for the massive wall of text, just my take on the matter from reading around the subject. I know it's UK law rather than US law, but I think it's still worth discussing. Feel free to disagree.

Dysartes wrote:

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?

Sorry to interrupt the wrangling for thread related topic matter...

Such cases can typically last more than a year as the various parties manuever and slow up the process as much as possible in the hopes their opposite will make a mistake. The right to a speedy trial is for criminal cases and even those can last a while, look at the recent case with michael jackson's doctor.

Also, keep in mind that pacer doesn't necessarily do real-time reporting of cases so we might not have the latest information.

WarMill, thank you much for the look at UK IP issues related to the case. Was getting the feeling that there were some larger distinct differences between UK and US copyright laws, but the UK and US laws regarding third parties making add-on parts seem fairly similar. I find it VERY interesting that GW has only five registered copyrights. I am am assuming that GW has far more registered trademarks given the long list of trademarked words in any of the rules books, but perhaps they were lax about registering their trademarks as well. It would be interesting to know how many of the words they claim as trademarked in the books are actually registered trademarks.

By the way the original owner of the Space Marines trademark was the maker of the game Princess Ryan's Space Marines in the USA. GW discovered the existence of the game after claiming trademark on Space Marines and I believe that a chunk of money changed hands so it could become GW's trademark.

Tim

WarMill wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I do like reading and find this subject fascinating:

Taken from the IPO's site:

[url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-designright/d-designright-qualify.htm[/url]]Are there any exceptions to Design Right?

Yes. Design features enabling one product to be functionally fitted or aesthetically matched (emphasis added) to another are excluded from protection. These so-called 'must-fit' and 'must-match' exceptions are influenced by the need to ensure that third party providers of spare parts should not be unfairly prevented from competing within the spare parts market.

Competitors cannot be stopped from copying any features of a protected design that enables their own design to be connected to or matched with existing equipment designed by someone else. However, competitors will infringe design right if they copy features of a protected design where there is no need to do so.

This is how you can buy a car door from someone besides the original car manufacturer that looks exactly the same as the original manufacturer's; if it didn't look the same, it wouldn't aesthetically match the car. According to the IPO, design right applies to unregistered designs. Search on the IPO's website and you'll find GW only has 5 or so actual registered designs, none of which are miniatures. On this basis, I'd argue shoulderpads and rhino doors are absolutely fair game in the UK. People are generally using the term copyright in this thread, but the copyright section of the IPO's site only discusses copyright in these terms :

agnosto wrote:Also, keep in mind that pacer doesn't necessarily do real-time reporting of cases so we might not have the latest information.

PACER is usually pretty good, it's usually what you use to look up information on pending litigation.

The free version, however, leaves something to be desired. You get what you pay for I suppose.

timd wrote:It would be interesting to know how many of the words they claim as trademarked in the books are actually registered trademarks.

1) You don't need to register a mark to have trademark protection (I'm sure you're aware of this, but just a reminder for those who may not be).

2) Find out for yourself! (USPTO link in case the other doesn't work.)

WarMill wrote:I'm not a lawyer, but I do like reading and find this subject fascinating:

Taken from the IPO's site:

]Are there any exceptions to Design Right?

There are substantial differences between design rights (which I understand are similar to design patents in the US) and copyright. US law used to have a concept known as "ornamental functionality" that applied to design patents, but I'm pretty sure that concept is now dead. That seems to correspond best with the "aesthetically matched" exemption you're referring to.

Patents in the UK (at least according to the IPO) are for the processes and functions that make your product work, copyright is for when your idea is'fixed', so written, recorded or drawn, but only applies to that fixed interpretation, and design rights protect the shape and appearance of your product in the marketplace. The intent I got was that patents are for the technical side, copyright covers art, and design rights are for products. The definition of design on the ipo site seems to be the most appropriate for GW's products, and is what the design right exception I mentioned comes under.

It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.

Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.

But they're not described as being part of the 40K universe, they're described as being compatible with their products. If that was what the suit was about, it would be over as soon as they changed the text wouldn't it? GW is accusing them of copying products, which is why the suit's dragging on: they won't say what those products are. The 40K universe as an idea can't be copyrighted: only the specific texts and characters described in enough detail to be considered 'fixed' can. This is why I would argue (if I was in trouble for that sort of thing) that the design rather than copyright (using UK definitions) rules applied, and therefore the design right exemption was valid as the parts were accessories to a product rather than a modification to a work of copyrighted art. I would also argue that design rules applied, as you'd be arguing over products that look similar (design) rather than are exact copies (copyright, again UK definitions as far as the IPO seems to make out). I really just think it's interesting to discuss how you'd play out the defense if CH was in the UK, I know US laws are a little bit different so consider it irrelevant if you want.

I'm not particular pro GW or CH, the suit just got me reading around the subject and I found it an interesting exercise.

English Assassin wrote:

brettz123 wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:GW will survive this and I feel will become a stronger company for it. I also feel that should this swing CH's way, we will be on the cusp of a creative wave of independents willing to expand the GW inspired universe.

I agree the competition will end up being good for GW as they will be forced to pay more attention to the desires of their customers and produce things people really want. It might also drive prices down somewhat which would be another good thing.

Given that GW rely upon the sales of miniatures for their profitability - a profitability which, as a publicly floated company, they must maintain - this result would be unlikely to mean anything beneficial to us, the players. If their profits from miniature sales fall, then other costs will have to be cut, which would probably necessitate fewer stores, fewer studio staff and less-frequent codex updates, particularly for the slower-selling (read xenos) armies. It might even be the thing to tip them over the edge and outsource production to China or relocate to the Caymans for tax purposes.

There is something of an ethical (as distinct from legal) case against Chapterhouse, given that it is GW who have invested (and risked) their capital over decades to create, develop and promote our hobby, something off which Chapterhouse now seek to profit without ever having made such an investment. Now I realise that's it's unusual to find GW occupying anything resembling the moral high ground, but I'm surprised that this point hasn't been raised before.

I respectfully disagree. Pretty much everything CH sells necessitates buying a GW product to use. The two "not" eldar models don't really but even then most people who buy them will stick them in an Eldar army. So to me I see this as bringing more variety / modelling possibilities to the hobby. To me this means that more people will have their imaginations fired up to start more projects and lead to not only more sales for GW but a larger number of overall customers as veterans gamers decide to buy "just one more army".

As far as ethical goes I acknowledge that you have a point but I don't really agree with it. At the end of the day the ethical consideration is a personal decision and if you feel they are unethical in what they are doing then I respect that decision even if I don't agree.

I don't think there is an ethical high ground there.

Business has always worked by some companies leading and others following.

If there is a high ground, GW have done more than their fair share of borrowing inspiration from prior sources and don't stand on it.

Kilkrazy wrote:If there is a high ground, GW have done more than their fair share of borrowing inspiration from prior sources and don't stand on it.

Also there are a variety of means to settle disputes with other companies and I don't think GW take a particularly reasonable line given some of the tenuous C&Ds they've sent out which amounts to bullying over a number of years.

Squigsquasher wrote:It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.

Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.

"The gods have always demanded worship and sacrifice but in return they grant their most zealous followers with supernatural strength and skills. Serqitet, goddess of the scorpion protects her followers through her warrior priestess.

Armed with sword and pistol, Armana'serq leads her fellow warrior-priest into close-combat through stealth and subterfuge."

"Doomseer Iyanar-Duanna is cursed with the ability to forsee the slow death of her race. She shares the ability of all seers, to see the path of her race, but is only able to see the deaths of her people and nothing else. She was psychically scarred when she witnessed the death of an entire world-ship, she is now doomed to spend every moment of her life tracking down the creature responsible."

"This is a sculpted 12 piece resin conversion kit that when combined with the Games Workshop Eldar Jetbike kit can form the model shown. It is meant to aid players in converting a regular jetbike kit into a farseer on jetbike model."

"This is a shoulder pad with a skull on it, the rest f the shoulder pad has armored studs. This shoulder pad works well with chaos or imperial marine models his could also be a chapter icon for the left shoulder."

Where do they say that their models belong into 40k? They say (where bits etc are concerned) on which GW models they fit, which is necessary information for their use.

Squigsquasher wrote:It's not the fact that the parts fit on their models that's the problem. In fact, GW encourages the use of household items, pieces of toys, and other assorted bits and bobs that might be useful for models. The problem is that the parts are specifically described as being part of the Warhammer 40'000 universe, and hence CH are making profit from GW's intellectual property. The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.

Now, I am not anti Chapterhouse. In fact, I purchased products from them, and would have used them had I not found out that they aren't tournament/store legal. I would love it if GW would actually give them a license and allow them to carry on making parts, but unfortunately, that isn't likely, and GW do have a case.

Does playing in a GW store/ having turnament legal models meen so much to you? If you purchaced those parts why can't you make a display model? or why can't you play at your house/club with them? If you got the bits and you just didn't like them, that I could understand after all taste is a subjective one, hell some people thing GW makes the 'best toy solders in the world'. >.> <.<

I find this case just poposterious. It's the equivilent of GW saying' hey, I don't like you anymore, im taking my toys and going home'. This is just spiteful and I believe was filed in bad faith by GW. They had hoped that CH would just fold up and die like alot of other companys in the past have. I am glad that CH got pro-bono repersentation so they can fight this and we can finally find out if GW's claims can be backed up in court.

They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.

@ FabricatorGeneralMike

I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.

People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.


@ Warboss Your comment about GW and what they allow in their tournaments.

I have played in GW sponsored events with my custom armies with non standard items on my models. It really comes down to region and managers within that region. The manager at my GW store has never given me any problems nor I expect to have any problems. But I have seen in the past in other parts of the country were your comment has been valid.

Just depends on the situation I guess.

rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent.

If GW are found guilty, one of the possible punishments is that they will be barred from pursuing copyright claims in that jurisdiction until the judge deems they have "atoned" for their past misconduct. Since it was GW's choice to bring this to federal court, the ban would apply throughout the US - if they are found guilty, and if the judge chooses that means of punishment instead of, for example, hitting them with a multimillion dollar fine and just disbarring their attorneys.

(...)
I agree with you that its unlikely - it will be very hard for CHS to prove malicious intent (monumental arrogance and institutional incompetence are not, as far as I am aware, against the law in the US). But I think you are underestimating the impact it could have IF the copyright misuse claim stands up.

The problem is that GW have made a rod for their own back with the copyright misuse claim. By insisting that the case be tried in federal court they have ensured that any ban is going to apply nationwide. And by maintaining the falacious argument that CHS products violate the "copyright" of the 40K Universe (which they cannot own, since it is by definition an idea) they have opened the door for the judge to ban them from asserting any copyrights associated with the 40K Universe.

IMO, it is far more likely that they (or their lawyers) will be found to have been incompetent rather than malicious, and even if W&S proves anti-competetive practise it is far more likely that GW will be "let off" with a 7 figure fine rather than banned from asserting copyright (although I suppose they could be banned until such time as the fine is paid). But it IS a possibility, and it is interesting to speculate on the consequences (although not here - there is another thread for that).

(...)
You are unlikely to have encountered it in a study of copyright, because it is derived from case law rather than statute, and is usually considered to be a branch of antitrust not IP law.

And the total ban really is the doomsday scenario - possible, but incredibly unlikely. I suspect the claim was brought by W&S not out of any belief that they could prove it, but so that they could use exactly this kind of speculation to force GW to settle.

From what I have been told, the doomsday scenario would only apply if ALL of GW's copyright claims were dismissed as a matter of law by the judge (trademark issues would be considered separately) AND W&S could prove malicious intent AND Judge Kenelly had a bad round of golf the previous day. Even then, he would more likely impose heavy fines on GW and go after their lawyers for misconduct.

If even one of GWs copyright claims makes it into court to be decided as a matter of fact then malicious intent cannot be proven, since the case did have *some* merit even if the jury eventually decides no copying took place.

monkey_box wrote:Based on the Foleys size and rep, along with the amount of time that's allocated for filing, various court dates, etc GW is probably out at least half a million so far. (that's a very low estimate as well)

Which of course gets passed on to their loyal fans as increased "opperational costs" and supported through cost hikes.
(...)
I work as consultant for a legal firm while we don't specialize in intellectual properties I know what case time is generally billed at and I can aproximate the hours based on the paperwork that's been filed publically.

warboss wrote:They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.

I find it somewhat daft that they won't allow a well modelled army using some non-GW parts at a tournament, but will allow hoards of unpainted and semi-assembled stuff on the table. Which do we suppose does the image of the hobby more of a disservice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Adam LongWalker wrote:@ FabricatorGeneralMike

I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.

People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.

Is this really a big deal outside Dakka and Warseer? Most of the world including a lot of GW customers don't know this is even going on.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

warboss wrote:They are most certainly legal in most stores in the US as the number of indie stores still outnumbers GW shops (just to clarify squig's statement). Only GW sponsored tournaments and events that are held in their own stores disallow the add ons... and, frankly, with the poor WYSIWIG and model rules enforcement you hear about from battle reports in ard boyz, I suspect you can use them there in the majority of indie stores for those events too. I doubt that most indie stores would kick out a potential customer for using a non-standard shoulderpad.

I find it somewhat daft that they won't allow a well modelled army using some non-GW parts at a tournament, but will allow hoards of unpainted and semi-assembled stuff on the table. Which do we suppose does the image of the hobby more of a disservice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Adam LongWalker wrote:@ FabricatorGeneralMike

I agree with your comment. I find it interesting that the Corporation found how really hard it is to fight someone in court when you do not have all of the prudent information in order before serving suit and your adversary is willing to put up a fight.

People don't realize how much damage this is causing Games Workshop in its reputation as being a quality miniatures company. Win or lose it still will look bad for the company. Games Workshop comes off as a bully this time.

Is this really a big deal outside Dakka and Warseer? Most of the world including a lot of GW customers don't know this is even going on.

It would appear that Dakka ate my post... sighs...well it was a whity remark and I shall morn it.

Basically what it amounted to was that most kids are online these days so they do come to the forms. They might not participate but they do read what's going on in the wargamming world.

My granddaugher thinks I am 'messing' with her when I tell her that there was a time when not everyone was on the web. That there was a time when cell phones only made phone calls and you couldn't go surfing on them, or send texts or pics ..she really can't get her head around it. So I think most of GW's target demographic is online then just don't particiipate in the fourms like we do.

Beat me to the punch FabricatorGeneralMike. I do know that information does spread via word by mouth to others that do not go to these sites, at least that is what I see in my region.

Kroothawk wrote:

rodmillard wrote:CHS are countersuing for Copyright Misuse, arguing that GW has been knowingly and deliberately claiming copyrights they do not (or in some cases can not) own and using C&D letters to drive competitors out of business. Which is true, but the tricky part will be proving intent...

Thanks for posting this up, Kroothawk.

Also, Holy Crap. I mean, look at the evidence all around- you have the fact that GW's website claims that they have trademarked "all of the Warhammer races" which includes orcs, dwarves and elves, the chaos star and a large number of other things that they cannot own, in addition to any photographs that customers have taken of their miniatures.

On top of that, the C&D letters seem to be sent out to US companies exclusively (because in other nations, the laws don't favor larger companies as much). I really want to see the Raging Heroes guys called into court to testify with the C&D they received. I wonder what steps would need to be taken to include other companies in the lawsuit.


I wonder how altruistic CHS and W&S are feeling at the moment. I mean, they could settle (which would probably be best for CHS) but they haven't really been in a position where settling has been imperative for them.

To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.

Squigsquasher wrote:The Warhammer 40'000 universe is GW's invention, they own it, and hence anyone who wishes to make profit from material related to the Warhammer 40'000 universe needs a license. CH are making money from someone else's intellectual property without a license, the intellectual property in this case characters and concepts from the Warhammer 40'000 universe.

The Hydra once again rears it's head.

I'm not trying to belittle you, but what you've written here is about as specific as saying, "CHS is going GW's thing."

First, define Intellectual Property. What form of intellectual property? There are many kinds: copyright, trademark, patent, etc.

Second, define "Warhammer 40,000 universe." What is this so-called intellectual property? How is it defined? How is it protectible? What are its boundaries? As Biccat has succinctly stated some pages ago, intellectual property laws typically create monopolies. There must of necessity be boundaries that define what the holder of any particular intellectual property right is and is not allowed to monopolize.

Do you want to take a crack at defining the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," or shall I? Let's start with a little brain teaser:

Earth (as in the planet) - part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, right? Is that GW's invention? If I write a story that takes place on Earth, am I infringing GW's "intellectual property." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll agree with me that the answer is a firm, "not necessarily." But what does this seemingly painfully obvious conclusion demonstrate?

It demonstrates that one must define what precisely Games Workshop did "invent" which implicitly forces you to exclude things that are not within the boundaries of so-called "intellectual property," even if they are indeed part of what you might call the "Warhammer 40,000 universe."

I'll invite another exercise: "Space Marine." That's pretty iconic. Is "Space Marine" the "Warhammer 40,000 universe?"

I'll invite one more: My Dark Heresy character is an Gunmetallican Arbites named Livius Pavo. He's a former undercover operative of the Divisio Immoralis with a severe demeanor and rigid adherence to duty. He leads a rag-tag band of acolytes seeking to rescue an inquisitor that was lost while attempting to navigate the Webway. Is Livius Pavo part of the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," which is of course, as you say, invented by Games Workshop.

Boy, isn't that a hefty issue. Go ahead and take a crack at dissecting that. For fun, imagine that I write a web comic about dear Livius and his companions executed in nothing but abstract whirls of color and binary dialog that is wildly popular among a large fan-base and represents my only significant source of income drawn from add revenue and merchandise.

Kroothawk wrote:To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.

you have got to be joking right? A preliminary search for manticore yields more than substantial evidence that this is an old folk concept... (i am assuming it's because of the manticore)

I didn't think my respect for GW could have sunk any lower. I hope and pray I'm done with buying anything from them. (and don't any of you get started about me trashing GW and being a hate-monger, my dislike of GW has long roots, beginning with their local staff)

weeble1000 wrote:
The Hydra once again rears it's head.

I'm not trying to belittle you, but what you've written here is about as specific as saying, "CHS is going GW's thing."

First, define Intellectual Property. What form of intellectual property? There are many kinds: copyright, trademark, patent, etc.

Second, define "Warhammer 40,000 universe." What is this so-called intellectual property? How is it defined? How is it protectible? What are its boundaries? As Biccat has succinctly stated some pages ago, intellectual property laws typically create monopolies. There must of necessity be boundaries that define what the holder of any particular intellectual property right is and is not allowed to monopolize.

Do you want to take a crack at defining the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," or shall I? Let's start with a little brain teaser:

Earth (as in the planet) - part of the Warhammer 40,000 universe, right? Is that GW's invention? If I write a story that takes place on Earth, am I infringing GW's "intellectual property." I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you'll agree with me that the answer is a firm, "not necessarily." But what does this seemingly painfully obvious conclusion demonstrate?

It demonstrates that one must define what precisely Games Workshop did "invent" which implicitly forces you to exclude things that are not within the boundaries of so-called "intellectual property," even if they are indeed part of what you might call the "Warhammer 40,000 universe."

I'll invite another exercise: "Space Marine." That's pretty iconic. Is "Space Marine" the "Warhammer 40,000 universe?"

I'll invite one more: My Dark Heresy character is an Gunmetallican Arbites named Livius Pavo. He's a former undercover operative of the Divisio Immoralis with a severe demeanor and rigid adherence to duty. He leads a rag-tag band of acolytes seeking to rescue an inquisitor that was lost while attempting to navigate the Webway. Is Livius Pavo part of the "Warhammer 40,000 universe," which is of course, as you say, invented by Games Workshop.

Boy, isn't that a hefty issue. Go ahead and take a crack at dissecting that. For fun, imagine that I write a web comic about dear Livius and his companions executed in nothing but abstract whirls of color and binary dialog that is wildly popular among a large fan-base and represents my only significant source of income drawn from add revenue and merchandise.

I can add to this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine. GW has no right to patent/claim the name just because they've become the biggest. They didn't invent the idea of the space marine, he's existed since the dawn of science fiction. It's clear that GW hijaced them right out of the pages written in history, and simply reworked the idea. Imperial guard? Do I even NEED to try to explain where they are all pulled from? Eldar are just space elves, and elves again come right out of historical fiction... GW is really stretching itself hard, and its the big-boy "I invented it" attitude that is eroding my respect for GW. The only thing GW has any rightful claim to are any models it produces, and any fiction it generates.

Yes, CHS has produced characters compatible with the 40k universe; now show me where in the 40k universe they actually exist? Nothing as been produced by CHS that directly competes with official GW product. (well, the malantai kafuffle, but CHS yielded and that's been removed.) At no point in time did CHS assert their product is part of the 40k universe, they said it was compatible with the 40k universe. That's a huge difference. On the one hand GW encourages people to make their own stuff, and to convert, etc, but on the next they ban companies that make compatible products for people to convert with. I won't lie, im terrible with putty, so if someone creates another part that i can use, whose aesthetics I either prefer to GW's, or GW does not produce, then I will go and purchase the part from said third party. This doesn't just have to do with CHS, but this has to do with every single person or company that is in the business of building and painting armies for the GW universe. As soon as a company makes a conversion, they are profiting off of GW's IP, even if it's the only conversion and its made entirely from GW parts. As soon as they paint an Ultramarines army and put it up for sale, they are profiting off of GW's IP. Even if they just paint an Eldar army according to non-GW designs, they would still be profiting off of GW's work, as the Eldar and models are trademarks of GW. (And cool it Squigsquasher, in case you are flaming mad right now, im not ripping into you, or, at least not trying to)

I don't see this case as decisive because of it's deciding on how after-market or compatible companies fare, but because of all the other stuff in between like army builder/painting services that are technically also in violation.

In any case, i think it might be well worth it to sit back and let this case roll on for a bit longer before saying anything further. I see no new arguments or new developments in the case so far. I don't think anyone else should be posting for the next bit, it's starting to get annoying to keep coming back to this thread to see the same arguments hashed out. The only one I think I haven't seen thoroughly discussed is the effect on Army Assembly/Painting services, but the point may well just be moot.

poda_t wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:To be fair, GW also has sent a C&D letter to French Raging Heroes for doing a model of a mythological beast.

you have got to be joking right? A preliminary search for manticore yields more than substantial evidence that this is an old folk concept... (i am assuming it's because of the manticore)

I didn't think my respect for GW could have sunk any lower. I hope and pray I'm done with buying anything from them. (and don't any of you get started about me trashing GW and being a hate-monger, my dislike of GW has long roots, beginning with their local staff)

No, not kidding. It floored me when I heard about it too. The model that Raging Heroes made was far and away better than GW's effort, compounding matters. This kind of heavy-handed bullying is typical for GW's legal team, though. I love the product they make and the ideas they present in fiction, but their business practices and legal attack dogs leaves something to be desired.

I've done business with both GW and CH and really like the products they both make. I sincerely hope that something good comes out of this mess.