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.

AgeOfEgos wrote:So the question is as before; Is GW's case that weak--or are their attorneys that incompetent?

We have no idea about the case, as GW has yet to produce one.
As for the lawyers... the actually seem to be competent. The problem seems to be meddling from people that have no idea whatsoever about laws. Or how to run a company, for that matter.
The base for that claim is that no lawyers acting that incompetent on their own would stay in business for long.

You know, for some reason I've got the feeling that the summary of this case would make a great Stupid Statement Dance Mix.

I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?

Oh good.

That's justice for you.

No, that's not what they're saying.

If I invented 40k and a company started making stuff for the sole use of the game that I invented, then damn straight I want a cut if they make $500,000 on the back of MY idea, and this is coming from the bloke that bought a bunch of magnetic combi weapons and 5 Spartan Style heads off CH.

If you wrote a book about Space Pigs and some bloke next door started selling Space Pig action figures, that guys has shown some admirable initiative, but he is still making cash off the back of your idea. The thing you thought of in the first place. In that case, Id say he should toss me something. Not all of his cash, but there is a middle ground surely?

And the fact of the matter is, we all use their gak to play 40k, not some other game that CH invented. If they sell me 50$ worth of stuff that I use for 40k, they have made 50$ because GW and Warhammer 40k exist.

I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.

At least I hope so, because I hate the child like mewling of the "I hate Games Workshop" crowd, and their whines and shrieks will be as silk and honey upon my eardrums.

That's an understandable moral position. Legally, it's virutally indefensible.

The market place is full of products that only have value because of name-brand products. Ipod skins, Gun Cases, Car add-on kits, and even third party ultra-detail resin components or decals for model kits all rely on another, specific product.

mattyrm wrote: I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.

GW has yet to prove that they even own the concepts that they claim CH infringed.

A bloke in the UK made all/alot of the stormtrooper armor used in the Star Wars movies back in the 70s.

He kept doing so, and selling it as replica stormtrooper armor for his own profit. LucasArts sued and demanded he cease production as it was quite obvious whose IP he was duplicating for his own profit (even though there is no 'official' outlet for life-sized replica/functional stormtrooper armor).

Long story short, under UK law he can keep producing and selling it, but he can't sell it to anybody in the US.

Who-owns-what and What-laws-where DO seem to matter in the real world, and us non-lawyerly types simply don't understand the intricacies involved. I think/I feel statements are nice, but clearly this matters enough that paid professionals are putting real time/money on the line to continue with the case.

Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?

GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.

warboss wrote:A sealed settlement that neither party can discuss leaves GW in the same situation it was prior to the lawsuit....

tbh I don't think that CHS will accept a sealed settlement, simply on the basis of how he has been treated by GW. Besides which, as some others have already said, it wouldn't settle anything for us wargamers.

Cheers

Andrew

sourclams wrote:

mattyrm wrote: I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.

GW has yet to prove that they even own the concepts that they claim CH infringed.

Yeah, that's just weird.

Kroothawk wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?

GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.

GW has international copyright for its IP. The US has signed up for international copyright standards (and uses that alot) so GW's IP claims are valid. All GW need to do is be specific, and there lies the rub.

mattyrm wrote: If I invented 40k and a company started making stuff for the sole use of the game that I invented, then damn straight I want a cut if they make $500,000 on the back of MY idea, and this is coming from the bloke that bought a bunch of magnetic combi weapons and 5 Spartan Style heads off CH.

If you wrote a book about Space Pigs and some bloke next door started selling Space Pig action figures, that guys has shown some admirable initiative, but he is still making cash off the back of your idea. The thing you thought of in the first place. In that case, Id say he should toss me something. Not all of his cash, but there is a middle ground surely?

And the fact of the matter is, we all use their gak to play 40k, not some other game that CH invented. If they sell me 50$ worth of stuff that I use for 40k, they have made 50$ because GW and Warhammer 40k exist.

I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.

At least I hope so, because I hate the child like mewling of the "I hate Games Workshop" crowd, and their whines and shrieks will be as silk and honey upon my eardrums.

As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.

The trouble comes with where the line is drawn. What does GW expect to be fair and what does CHS expect to be fair, and then what we expect to be fair. Remember, if its percentage based, then CHS is likely going to bump the price up to make up for the difference in losses, if its going to be a license, then.... dear gods that is expensive and everything is going to have to be GW approved, in addition to the percentage claim. It's all in where the numbers lie. Ideally, since GW already produces spare parts, GW woudl rather be the sole producer of spare parts for its own game. You can already get packs of virtually anything, including pads, weapons, upgrades etc.

And the argument you pointed out can also be used to extreme. The universe DOES belong to GW. At the root, it can be reduced to the fact that if you owned a business, would you suffer someone else making a profit off of your product? Sure, you could give them a license and claim a cut off of their sales, but it would be less than if you actually owned everything and just paid the person a wage to produce the stuff.

As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)

poda_t wrote:

As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.

I think you're off, and you'll find that many people do not agree with that at all. While CHS wouldn't exist without the GW IP, neither would a mess of other unlicensed products in many mediums. I don't want GW having any kind of control over what a third party can produce as an add on. The fact of it is, with very very few exceptions (3 that I can think of at the time I write this), GW still makes money off of sales of CHS products.

As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)

It remains to be seen whether that claim is legitimate (and it also depends on them actually making one that will pass the requirements for the court). You can say it is, but that is purely based on your opinion at this time, and has no law to back it up.

mattyrm wrote:I don't know what the end result will be, but in my eyes, they should have to pay GW some form of compensation.

That's great, but that's your own opinion. In the legal world, the lines need to be clearly drawn so that companies like CH can produce products that don't infringe but are still compatable.

Do you think someone making terrain that fits standard GW base sizes owes GW some form of competition? How about 25mm bases? Where the line is drawn is important.

poda_t wrote:As far as I can tell, I think absolutely anyone that has ever posted in this thread is in agreement with this.

To some extent, but like you said, it depends on where the line is drawn. In order to determine the line, the first thing we need to know is what CH is alleged to infringe.

poda_t wrote:As much as I despise GW, it has a legitimate claim here, i just hope that the outcome is an unhappy medium (I know this sounds odd, but I find that the fairness of a court case resolution can be measured by the mutual dissatisfaction of both parties....)

What's the legitimate claim that was infringed? What copyright did CH infringe? So far GW has been pretty evasive on that point.

Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?

No, that's not what CH is claiming at all. What CH is asking for is a clear statement of what they did wrong. GW hasn't been willing to answer that.

Dysartes wrote:So here's a question for the lawyery types who frequent this thread - if you were CH, given what you've seen in the court documents thus far, would you prefer to take the case to trial or settle? If settle, what would you be needed to see from GW to make you prefer that option?

Settling is always a better option because trials are costly, time-consuming, and difficult. As for what I'd like to see, at a minimum would be a covenant not to sue. Probably something that covered CH's products that are in-production as well.

Orlanth wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:

Squigsquasher wrote:I see...Now, correct me if I'm wrong here, but what they seem to be saying is because Chapeterhouse's products were released in the US first, GW can't claim intellectual property theft?

GW claims before a US court that Chapterhouse has broken US copyright law with things, GW has no US copyright (plus others GW refuses to prove their US copyright). The good old times, where someone just had to shout "hang the bastard" and the lynch mob applied, are over.

GW has international copyright for its IP. The US has signed up for international copyright standards (and uses that alot) so GW's IP claims are valid. All GW need to do is be specific, and there lies the rub.

Exactly. GW has copyright on the things for which they have copyright. The question is what things do they have copyright on?

They haven't made a clear claim of copyright in the past year. That suggests that they are finding it difficult to establish their claimed properties, or to show how CH have violated any.

A bit of movement, although this is proposed..

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.

That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.

Holdenstein wrote:A bit of movement, although this is proposed..

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.

That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.

I did not see this text on recap the law. I assume that this is the text of GWs motion to compel. I also assume that the judge did not grant the motion.

It also looks like Chaperhouse also filed motions to compel GW to answer questions. From my limited knowledge of the case this seems like the same stuff they were doing six months ago.

Holdenstein wrote:A bit of movement, although this is proposed..

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.

That's a bit of a boost to GW's case, but no news yet on whether Chapterhouse's motion to compel has been successful.

So, what does this mean, precisely?

Since it's "proposed," does that mean it was submitted by GW for court approval, or did the court generate this?

Eric

poda_t wrote:And the argument you pointed out can also be used to extreme. The universe DOES belong to GW. At the root, it can be reduced to the fact that if you owned a business, would you suffer someone else making a profit off of your product? Sure, you could give them a license and claim a cut off of their sales, but it would be less than if you actually owned everything and just paid the person a wage to produce the stuff.

Licensing intellectual property rights has the strong potential to be a very high yield, low risk venture. It depends a great deal on what you are licensing, for how much, to how many entities, and what you invested in ownership of said rights.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:Settling is always a better option because trials are costly, time-consuming, and difficult. As for what I'd like to see, at a minimum would be a covenant not to sue. Probably something that covered CH's products that are in-production as well.

Jurors are also a wild card, especially in a case with laws that are open to such a great deal of subjective interpretation (comparatively speaking). It is difficult to tell what a group of jurors will do in a case like this, which is one reason why so few copyright cases go to trial. You're putting complicated issues into the hands of a group of people that actually showed up for jury duty, and who in all likelihood have little idea about the context of the case.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

MagickalMemories wrote:IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC
(“Chapterhouse”):
• Respond to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15 and Document Requests Nos.
2, 14-21, 25, 27 and 29, within 14 days of this Order, or at such time as the parties
may otherwise agree;
• Complete its responses to Requests 9 and 10 within 14 days of this Order, or at such
time as the parties may otherwise agree;
• De-designate immediately its supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 6, 9,
and 10.
In addition, Chapterhouse is hereby deemed to have admitted all of Games Workshop’s
admission requests, or be precluded from relying upon any information called for by these
requests, including any information in support of its defense of independent creation.
Further, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(4), the Court hereby
apportions one half of Games Workshop’s reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees,
incurred in bringing its Motion to Compel or for Sanctions.

So, what does this mean, precisely?

Since it's "proposed," does that mean it was submitted by GW for court approval, or did the court generate this?

Eric

That's a proposed order. It has absolutely not been issued by the Court. There will be a separate docket entry when the Court rules on motions. It may be for "reasons stated in open court" if the Judge rules on the motion(s) at the time of oral argument, or the Court may issue a written opinion about its ruling(s). However it happens, it will be obvious that the Court has issued a ruling.

The deadline to respond to the motions isn't until next week, and the Court will hear oral argument on the 19th. Clearly, the Court will not issue a ruling until that date at the very least.

Okay... So, that's something GW proposed, then?
Thanks!


Eric

So this is basically GW's wishlist for the judge.

They really shouldn't be able to write words for the mouth of the judge like "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED." I think "The plaintiff humbly requests" would be better there.

frozenwastes wrote:So this is basically GW's wishlist for the judge.

They really shouldn't be able to write words for the mouth of the judge like "IT IS HEREBY ORDERED." I think "The plaintiff humbly requests" would be better there.

It's not unusual for both sides to provide draft orders to go with their motions; it speeds things up if the judge grants your motion.

GW humble?...some day, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Can you claim fees from the opposing party in US courts? I know you can in the UK but I was informed that US law was different.

Orlanth wrote:Can you claim fees from the opposing party in US courts? I know you can in the UK but I was informed that US law was different.

The person filing the suit can attempt to include reasonable legal expenses as part of the judgment, should they win.

Additionally, a defendant can counter-sue. If they counter-sue, they can make the request that their legal expenses be paid as part of the judgement, should the counter-suit win out.

But, that being said, the legal expenses do not automatically get paid by the loser like they do in some other legal systems.

A part of the reason the US can be a bit litigous compared to other countries.

Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?

Zakiriel wrote:Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?

That's a tremendously loaded question which raises a variety of new questions, opinions, and debatable topics.

You could pose this question in the Off Topic section, or research it yourself.

@Zakiirel:

Here's a link to get started on the issues facing a loser pays system if we wanted to implement that in the US:

http://www.rutgerspolicyjournal.org/sites/rutgerspolicyjournal.org/files/issues/8_3/JLPP_8-3_Gryphon.pdf?test=1

Zakiriel wrote:Would having the looser of whatever legal case pay the expenses help or hurt the U.S. Legal system?

Depends. In the current system, anyone and everyone can sue for whatever reasons, which leads to more lawsuits. Which has its good points(easy to bring lawsuits) and downsides(easy to bring suits, however silly).

Loser pays, has its good poinst and bad points- good being it possiblely weeds out the silly suits(because then you have to pay when you lose), but the downside is that it will make legitimate suits hesitate, because you have to pay(stiffles possible legitimate suits).

While interesting, this is getting off topic - Everyone please stay on point in here.

Thanks!