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.

Don't forget GW suing RAFM over the latter's "Reaction Marines" back in (IIRC) the early 1990's...

Dunno if a different story's come out, but back in the day the story was that they didn't care about winning so much as bleeding RAFM dry...

Valete,

JohnS

cygnnus wrote:Don't forget GW suing RAFM over the latter's "Reaction Marines" back in (IIRC) the early 1990's...

Dunno if a different story's come out, but back in the day the story was that they didn't care about winning so much as bleeding RAFM dry...

Valete,

JohnS

I think that is what is so great about what is going to come out of this case if it goes the full length. This will clearly lay out what GW can command others do and what they cannot. It will allow other companies to plan effectively without always looking over their shoulder wondering if a big C&D is about to hit them.

On of the biggest costs of these type of cases for the small business man is not the money - it is the time, the distraction away from running the business, the potential to ruin a business because cannot afford to defend it and the impact it may have on his family.

warboss wrote:

Adam LongWalker wrote:You know this is costing GW in lawyer fees. The more it lags on the more it will hurt their bottom line, though minor in a monetary manner.

You'd think so but their profits were only in the single digit millions just a year or two ago. Even a bill of a few hundred thousand dollars could take a chunk out of that.

Not neccessarily. If GW successfully defends the copyright, the legal costs are an asset that goes towards copyright that is ammoritized.

In other words, if GW wins the case and spends $200,000 on it, and they ammortize copyright for 20 years, they would only recognize a $10,000 expense each year.

Granted, this assumes that GW wins the case...

notprop wrote:GW have substantial cash reserves IIRC from their last report, I really don't see fees being something they haven't thought about and planned for. If it shows, it will be as a dip in this figure.

It will be interesting to see if they continue to boast about their 'fortress wall'.

And thats the point I was trying to make. Said fortress wall is no more substantial a defence than its imaginary blocks if it is not tested and found to be true at some point.

If it crumbles GW will have a new basis for its position and change its operation accordingly. It might be beneficial to hobbyists (all oin one release with all kits available), negative (fewer units/options and a slower turnover or codicies) or a combimation of both.

The new secrecy policy would seem to be first step in that direction?

Definitely interesting Howard, it fuels my interest in this topic as it has such far reaching implications for both GW and the greater hobby.

notprop wrote:
Definitely interesting Howard, it fuels my interest in this topic as it has such far reaching implications for both GW and the greater hobby.

My greatest concern is that a win for GW would be unhealthy for the hobby. I see CHS and others as healthy for the hobby and good for hobbyists. Some say their work is mediocre, whatever, but it gives the hobbyist choice and diversity is a good thing. No one has to buy their stuff. I don't think CHS pose much of a threat to GW in any fashion and don't deprive them of sales, they may well encourage sales and this is very much the thinking from other model manufacturers. Do you think Tamiya care that someone makes resin stuff specifically for their kits? While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...." Tamiya must just laugh, because modellers will buy more of their kits to make every variant that is now available. And best of all, if Tamiya decide to make that variant themselves, the modeller will go out and buy it again because it's easier than working with resin! And that's why modeller's attics and cupboards are full of multiple copies of kits and conversion kits.

GW should simply pretend people like CHS don't exist. Don't make it known that you have chosen not to make a point of defending your IP because that carries risk, but simply ignore them because they are a tiny company in comparison to your own. But it's far too late for that, it was too late once they sent the C&D because that was a public declaration they had identified them. To then not press ahead with a case could then backfire, the initial claim can appear malicious, or that you are unwilling to defend your IP, are not desirable outcomes.

As I said, CHS aren't really doing any harm to GW they never were. Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.

Howard A Treesong wrote: Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.

This, incidentally, speaks a lot to why I no longer purchase or, to a large extent, play GW products.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
...While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...."

I wonder if that's true. I mean, it isn't illegal for another company to acknowledge the existence of your corporation, and the evidence seems to be that CHS said "For use with GW products" and GW has yet to provide a legal argument that this isn't ok.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
As I said, CHS aren't really doing any harm to GW they never were. Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.

Too true. GW really could have handled this better. And it is a little too demonstrable that GW claims a lot of copyright that they don't own.

odinsgrandson wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:
...While they can't defend the use of the shape of historical vehicles, they could prevent someone saying "For use with the Tamiya ...."

I wonder if that's true. I mean, it isn't illegal for another company to acknowledge the existence of your corporation, and the evidence seems to be that CHS said "For use with GW products" and GW has yet to provide a legal argument that this isn't ok.

I'm more thinking that they could say that someone describing their resin turret as "designed to fit a Tamiya 1/35th ....." it could appear as though it is endorsed by them when it isn't. Even CHS have stepped back a bit from how they describe their stuff making descriptions a bit less specific now. The reason companies like Tamiya probably don't ask people not to use their name in conjunction with their products is because they just don't see it as a problem, and they know that customers buying aftermarket parts are fully aware of their non-official status.

And, though I'm sure you are aware, the reason that aftermarket producers will specify a manufacturer is because plastic kit companies design their kits differently and things like the diameter of the turret ring is different between models of the same vehicle so a conversion set is better suited to some kits more than others. That's why it is done, not to steal their sales.

Platuan4th wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote: Any damage to GW has been done to themselves by pursuing it. Really they only have themselves to blame. Though if this affects GW customers, no doubt some will claim that it's CHS fault for not just folding when challenged instead of looking at the number of ways GW could have managed the situation to their advantage.

This, incidentally, speaks a lot to why I no longer purchase or, to a large extent, play GW products.

They simply are not a company that is good at providing sourcing to their customers. Why is there still no plastic Thunderwulf kit? How come there is no bits service for all common, high-demand items like missile launchers, combi weapons, and Terminator special weapons?

GW could utterly crush all of the after-market parts dealers like Chapterhouse if it simply eliminated the market that these 3rd party producers are catering to; stuff GW is too lazy to make.

Don't know if I'm the first to spot it, but the case against Paulson has been dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court,
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action is dismissed as against Jon Paulson, with prejudice
and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. Nothing herein shall limit or affect plaintiff’s
pending claims against Chapterhouse Studios LLC. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
the parties’ settlement

Cheers

Andrew

Well that'll be a relief to him seeing as he's got nothing to do with it.

I wonder how much it cost him to extricate himself from a case that he had nothing to do with.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Well that'll be a relief to him seeing as he's got nothing to do with it.

No doubt I am shure that he is relieved. One thing though it said;

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, subject to the approval of the Court,
that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, this action is dismissed as against Jon Paulson, with prejudice
and without costs or attorneys’ fees to either party. Nothing herein shall limit or affect plaintiff’s
pending claims against Chapterhouse Studios LLC. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce
the parties’ settlement

and without costs or attorneys fees to either party. So does that mean that he's one the hook for his own attorneys fees even though he had nothing to do with it anyways? That doesn't sound like a win to me personally. It would be like GW sueing me because my name was mistakenly attached to a model that I never built then say that 'we are sorry but you're on the hook for all the legal expences we mistakenly filed againsted you, Have a nice day (although secretely we wish you would get hit by a car while crossing the street). GW upper management


OR does it mean that you get the money back that you have spend on your own lawyer? or that your attorney gets paid by the court?

I just don't understand that -and without costs or attorneys fees to either party- line.

Basically means legal fees have not been awarded. Both parties are on the hook for their own costs.

I'm fairly certain that Paulson had pro-bono representation, so it's basically saying that his counsel cannot seek reimbursement.

Really? So he's left out of pocket because GW don't know what they are doing and just roped him in with their legal action?

Howard A Treesong wrote:Really? So he's left out of pocket because GW don't know what they are doing and just roped him in with their legal action?

"Pro Bono" means they worked for free...


****Edit note***
Correction. It means they worked at no cost OR at a reduced fee.

In most cases, what it means is they'll work at no cost or at a drastically reduced fee. They might get the option to have their fees reimbursed, however, through the decision of the courts.

Sorry, I thought he hadn't got that, it still leaves the lawyers at a loss. GW's actions just look stupid. At least target the right people with legal action.

SOP on a lawsuit. It is better to hit innocent bystanders than it is to let someone who might end up paying you money get away.

If I were the lawyer doing Pro Bono and found that the lawsuit had nothing to do with my client, I'd counter sue for fees since it was a waste of both mine and my clients time.

GW should have had a fething clue as to what they were doing, and it should be illegal to just sue people willy nilly and then drop the suit when they find out the defendant had nothing to do with said suit. I'd be pissed as hell. What if it hadn't been pro bono? GW should have to compensate those that it drags into this when those people had nothing to do with the case to begin with.

Now there Aerethan, you're making the classic mistake of believing the legal system has anything to do with justice.

Jefffar wrote:Now there Aerethan, you're making the classic mistake of believing the legal system has anything to do with justice.

true. And don't get me wrong, I don't think GW is the devil and all that. But to force someone into legal fees and then later admit that said person is not involved with the suit should result in those fees being covered by the plaintiff. I wish I was a judge sometimes.

All the order means is that there's no "above the table" money changing hands. It might be that his lawyers were able to wrangle something behind the scenes on condition of silence and a promise of no counter suit. You'll note the "with prejudice" part which means GW can't turn around and sue him again later over the same issue.

Howard A Treesong wrote:Sorry, I thought he hadn't got that, it still leaves the lawyers at a loss. GW's actions just look stupid. At least target the right people with legal action.

It is traditional for law firms in the USA and UK to take on a certain amount of Pro Bono work each year, so the lawyers for Paulson have fulfilled their duty and will not be worried about the lack of remuneration for this case.

agnosto wrote:You'll note the "with prejudice" part which means GW can't turn around and sue him again later over the same issue.

Unfortunately, as far as I'm aware in this case that'll just mean GW can't turn around and sue him again over something he has no connection with. Rather a cold comfort, all things considered...

Of course, if any of our legal (b)eagles wish to expand on what the "with prejudice" element in this case would mean, that'd be cool. The above is merely my opinion based on what has been said earlier in this case history.

Dysartes wrote:Of course, if any of our legal (b)eagles wish to expand on what the "with prejudice" element in this case would mean, that'd be cool. The above is merely my opinion based on what has been said earlier in this case history.

There's a legal doctrine called "claim preclusion." It basically means that once an issue has been decided between two parties they can't re-litigate the case. So if I sue you and lose, I can't sue you again and hope for a different result from a new jury.

Often cases get dismissed before a final verdict is rendered, either by settlement or because there isn't a valid case for some reason. The question then is when claim preclusion attaches so as to prevent a new case from being brought on that issue.

When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it means that preclusion has attached and the determination of the issue is final. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, then the plaintiff could sue the defendant on the same cause of action again.

biccat wrote:When a case is dismissed "with prejudice" it means that preclusion has attached and the determination of the issue is final. If the case is dismissed without prejudice, then the plaintiff could sue the defendant on the same cause of action again.

Thanks biccat - given the motion earlier up the page dismissing the Paulson Games bit with prejudice, then, would that be specific to the model they claimed Paulson were involved with (despite the fact that they had nowt to do with it in the first place)?

I am not sure whether Paulson had a pro bono lawyer, even if he kept close to Chapterhouse lawyer positions.

The prejudice thing is very important. It basically means that GW can't bring the case against him again.

This is good news.

I wonder if W&S lawyers are now going to try to push for a change in venue/jurisdiction now that the only tenuous connection to Chicago has been severed.