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.

Dysartes wrote: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)?

It means they can't bring the same cause of action (whatever that was) against Paulson.

So if they had accused him of trademark infringement of "Space Marine" on their shoulder pads (I'm just making this up), then they couldn't again sue Paulson for trademark infringement of "Space Marine" on their shoulder pads. That doesn't necessarily preclude them from bringing, for example, a copyright infringement case based on the same works (it's a more detailed analysis).

I just had a read through recent court documents on pacer. They've put up CH's response to GWs petition to order to compell; a good read with more than the usual giggles. I especially like the copies of e-mails that CH's attorneys included with their response; ah the vitriol and hyperbole going back and forth...it warms the cockles of my heart. I especially like this bit:

Far from deserving half of its fees for bringing this motion, Plaintiff should compensate Defendant’s having to respond to this meritless motion.

And this is an absolute gem:

Plaintiff has resorted to litigation to vindicate its belief that the entire fictional world of Warhammer 40,000, which is inhabited by thousands of hobbyists and their imaginative
endeavors, is its intellectual property. It apparently believes that this extends even to accessories and other decorations that fit on its own sculptural works to enhance the gaming experience for devoted hobbyists, including creative works it has never dreamed of.

Love it!

Rather than pointing to any actionable copying, Plaintiff complains that Chapterhouse develops products “that can be used with Games Workshop’s popular Warhammer 40,000 game,” products that are “tied to the specific names, characters, imagery created by Games Workshop” (emphases added).1 Plaintiff complains that even the name “Chapterhouse” is too close for comfort, because Plaintiff has organized its Space Marines into “Chapters.” Mot. at 2. None of these claims is a legitimate basis for an infringement lawsuit.2 Plaintiff insists that Chapterhouse has conceded access to and copying of Plaintiff’s works3, and claims that a boilerplate statement on Chapterhouse’s website operates as an admission that Plaintiff owns copyrights in all the works at issue.

I give you credit and it's an admission that I copied something even though you can't point out anything that I copied?!? I'm not a lawyer and even I think that's funny.

The Conclusion:

Plaintiff has concocted issues to put before this Court where none exist. In the few casesin which a genuine disagreement exists, Plaintiff seeks discovery that is overbroad, unduly burdensome, duplicative and irrelevant to any claim. With respect to Chapterhouse’s responses to Plaintiff’s Requests for Admission, Plaintiff has simply miscalculated the deadline, compounding its error with its failure to meet and confer on the issue. Plaintiff’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.

Oh the lolz!


http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/

That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

To be fair, the defense is insinuating that GW is insinuating that they own everything that has been made, is made and ever will be made that even remotely relates to the 40k universe, regardless of source.

I dug up this from the same source:

"Regarding Plaintiff’s Interrogatory 8, it asked for the meaning of Chapterhouse and the
sources Chapterhouse used in selecting this name. Chapterhouse provided both. It is
unclear what else Plaintiff seeks and why."

What? GW want to own the word Chapterhouse now? The late Frank Herbert is going to do his nut! (Not a suggestion that he invented the word)



God (Emperor) only knows what would happen if Chapterhouse start releasing space nuns! Or any of a couple of dozen ideas that they could possibly lift from Dune and put into a Sci-fi miniatures game.

Although for the record, anyone releasing a (not) Miles Teg miniature could make a few friends.

Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.

So GW claims to own IP that they don't even come up with? Ballsy move. Soon they'll be claiming that they own copyright on the idea of games in general that have anything to do with science fiction or fantasy.

agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:

That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.

Awesome.

Aerethan wrote:So GW claims to own IP that they don't even come up with? Ballsy move. Soon they'll be claiming that they own copyright on the idea of games in general that have anything to do with science fiction or fantasy.

No, they claim that you're creating a derivative work by you creating a work based off their setting.

Background

Background text is a major part of the hobby and writing your own is almost as much fun as reading it. Please remember to use the correct trademark disclaimer somewhere on your site, zip file and/or document. We would also ask that at the top of the material you state something equivalent to the following: "Death Ravine" an unofficial story by K. Roundtree derived, without permission, upon the Warhammer intellectual property owned by Games Workshop Ltd." Please note that we consider any background material you write to be a work which is derivative of our intellectual property. As such, you should refrain from putting any notice claiming that anyone other than Games Workshop Ltd has any right over Games Workshop-owned intellectual property or derivatives thereof.

There's their statement. I don't think they'd claim that they wrote it, just that they can do with it as they please. They have the same thing up in regards to submitting photos of your painted models to them.

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:

That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.

Awesome.

Where was that bit? Is it somewhere in the emails from '132.1 Exhibit' in which they go back and forth bitching at each other?

"INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Separately for each work that YOU claim Chapterhouse infringes, state on an annual basis for the past ten (10) years (a) YOUR gross revenues generated from sales of the work; and (b) YOUR gross and net profit generated from sales of the work and how such profit was calculated."

Source: http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.122.0.pdf

I wonder if this juicy nugget will ever see the light of day on Recap?

Kanluwen wrote:There's their statement. I don't think they'd claim that they wrote it, just that they can do with it as they please. They have the same thing up in regards to submitting photos of your painted models to them.

See, that's not clear. If you submit pictures on their site they take ownership of them. That's not uncommon, but what could they use them for? Could they appear in a magazine or book produced by them?

It would be interesting if someone submitted pictures of someone else's work because then they would publish something online they were never legitimately given.

intellectual property

read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law

DIDM wrote:intellectual property

read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law

What's your point?

DIDM wrote:intellectual property

read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law

As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.

IP may be law, but what is the law? That's what this case is about. If GWs reading of IP law, as designated on their website, is true then this case would never have reached the stage it has. However we are a year down the line with a further year to go, so what GW claims as their IP rights is far from accepted and/or proven.

So far we have seen a complete lack of cooperation between the two parties, and I'm not blind (before Kan chimes in) both parties have played 'silly buggers' here. GW has yet to quantify what exactly has been copied.

Lets take one of my favorites, 'Chapterhouse'. It has a multitude of uses that relates to many different sources. As far as I am aware, 'Chapterhouse' or Chapter House, does not appear as a GW trademark name yet GW claims its use is infringing on it's IP? On the basis the SMs are grouped in chapters? What next, sue the book industry because words are grouped in chapters and so are SMs? (I know that's pedantic of me but it illustrates to me the level to which GW has sunk.)

Cheers

Andrew

biccat wrote:

agnosto wrote:I especially like this bit:

That was your favorite? Aside from the email exchanges where the GW lawyer comes off as a complete jerk, my favorite part was when Chapterhouse explained how to calculate a date for when a response is due.

Awesome.

I just took that in stride as part of the hyperbole between parties.

AndrewC wrote:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

DIDM wrote:intellectual property

read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law

What's your point?

As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.

And why does it suck? It protects people from having their work plagiarised and drives innovation.

Also what is your point? Stating that "intellectual property is the law" in a topic about a legal (law) battle over ownership of IP (Intellectual Property)... is about as insightful as walking into a glass door. Especially since Intellectual Property is not 'the law'. The law is the law. Intellectual Property is Intellectual Property. There are a number of laws 'pertaining to' Intellectual Property. But those laws can only be invoked in cases, where someone is first able to prove that they actually own Intellectual Property, that their property is of a type protected by the law, and that said property is being infringed. Games Workshop don't even seem to be sure what it is they think they own. Let alone proved that they own it. Chapter House seem to believe Games Workshop's IP claims are unsubstantiated. That is what the whole case is about. This 59 page topic is about the case, and has already discussed IP law in great depth, with legal professionals providing input.

But yeah thanks for the pro tip, otherwise we might not have known that IP has something to do with the law...

Kanluwen wrote:

Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.

The bit about "You can't combine our IP with anyone else's" (my paraphrase.)

Yeah, I think we're mostly in favor of having intellectual property laws here. It is just that it looks like GW has overstepped the law by quite a bit- or else they've got lawyers who are unable to demonstrate GW's intellectual property claims before a court.

Intellectual Property laws are complex, but the troubles that GW is having look really basic. I mean, I have thought that CHS was acting within their rights from the beginning, but I also think that I could put forward an argument of some kind.

Kanluwen wrote:

Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.

Yeah, it is largely about covering their rears. Then again, they've had a really overreaching version of copyright posted on their site for a long time now, and they've stated them in the broadest ways possible- claiming more rights than they have under law. Like Tolkien's races and Moorcock's chaos star.

I guess I can see how a company can decide to use overstatements like that as a policy, but I think it is coming back to bite them now (with the counter-suit and all). I wonder exactly how this is going to play out, since the counter-suit in part is about GW claiming copyright that they do not own. That could be a rough one for them to justify.

Keep an eye out for them changing the legalese on the official GW website.

odinsgrandson wrote:Keep an eye out for them changing the legalese on the official GW website.

GW legal page wrote:It would be helpful if you could check this policy document every so often (perhaps once a month or so) to see if there have been any changes to it.

E.g. they reformulated the bit where all conversions are illegal but not sued. But they still claim trademark for Moorcock's Chaos star.
Also, with no mentioning GW products

Create, distribute, or use any material that is derogatory, obscene, or offensive.

But then again, they now have a tool to stop all those badly painted GW models on ebay

Create, distribute, or use any material that devalues any Games Workshop product in any way.

AndrewC wrote:

DIDM wrote:intellectual property

read up on it, it may SUCK, but it is the law

As Howard said, I'm really not sure what your point is.

IP may be law, but what is the law? That's what this case is about. If GWs reading of IP law, as designated on their website, is true then this case would never have reached the stage it has. However we are a year down the line with a further year to go, so what GW claims as their IP rights is far from accepted and/or proven.

So far we have seen a complete lack of cooperation between the two parties, and I'm not blind (before Kan chimes in) both parties have played 'silly buggers' here. GW has yet to quantify what exactly has been copied.

Lets take one of my favorites, 'Chapterhouse'. It has a multitude of uses that relates to many different sources. As far as I am aware, 'Chapterhouse' or Chapter House, does not appear as a GW trademark name yet GW claims its use is infringing on it's IP? On the basis the SMs are grouped in chapters? What next, sue the book industry because words are grouped in chapters and so are SMs? (I know that's pedantic of me but it illustrates to me the level to which GW has sunk.)

Cheers

Andrew

Is that true, the "Chapterhouse" bit? Sheesh, if it is I'm gobsmacked that even they could try and claim that as theirs. You've got to give them 10 out 10 for cheek at least

Wolfstan wrote:Is that true, the "Chapterhouse" bit? Sheesh, if it is I'm gobsmacked that even they could try and claim that as theirs. You've got to give them 10 out 10 for cheek at least

It certainly is. Although I don't recall GW ever using the term 'chapterhouse', they claim that it is too close to their use of the term 'chapters' in describing space marines.

It's quite a stretch.

The more I read these documents the more I think it becomes apparent that GW is about to learn a valuable lesson in business administration.

It really does sound like they have issued this lawsuit thinking they were obviously right and would win or CHS would back down.

When the case continued it became apparent that GW doesn't seem to have the basic admin procedures surrounding IP/ copyrights and trademarks it needs to support its case. Companies I have worked for have a dept that does that and with only a slight exaggeration all that info is to hand with a click of mouse and a push of a photocopier button.

While I understand a lot of the legal exchanges are similar to the opening turn and placement of WHFB (v.7 not 8) to determine victory, many of the issues of simple what is copyrighted/ trademarked and how those were given should be a 2 minute photocopy job.

I find the GW strategy ... strange ... surely this should be a simple case of "this is what we own, this is why we own it and this is what you have infringed now gives us your profits and quit it". This case doesn't even have this after a year. Surely that isn't normal?

Most of what I am perceiving from GW's legal reps are delay tactics and, to use CHs lawyer's phrase, a smokescreen. There seems to be intentional misunderstandings, wild allegations and very little of substance. My inexpert opinion is that GW's counsel got involved in the case without thoroughly examining the merits, or lack thereof, of the case and are now attempting a number of maneuvers in an attempt to stall and create something from nothing. Well played game in CH's counsel in deftly avoiding damaging their defense.

I am getting the impression that Chapterhouse's lawyers are beginning to enjoy this "case", GW's lawyers not so much.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Aerethan wrote:That last bit is awesome!

So does that meant that GW believes they own the fluff I write for my own armies? Do they then own paint schemes as well? Is nothing sacred? The gall...

They do have something to that effect on their website, under the Legal bit. It's never really been enforced though, and seems to just be there as a means of covering their own rears.

The bit about "You can't combine our IP with anyone else's" (my paraphrase.)

Oh No! What about the ponies in Space Marine armour?

Well thank god they don't believe in the internet and so should never find these things.

You should sued for bringing that to my attention.

If any of the lawyers that say they are on this thread actually are, I want a restraining order on the last poster preventing him/her/it from being within 50 meters of the Internet ever again on pain of waterboarding.

No one should have to see that gak!

Why are ponies in Space Marine armor?

Anyway, is it even possible to start feeling sorry for GW at this point? Because I kinda do. They're losing a lot of money over this and making themselves look really foolish while Chapterhouse, a company who was so "obviously" infringing according to a lot of people on this site, just sits back and laughs at them while being out no or very little money of their own. This case should have ended fairly quickly if GW knew what the hell it was doing.

I don't know what else to say, I'm still in awe over this. Almost a year on and GW hasn't been able to provide basic stuff that you would think they'd have access to at the click of a mouse, considering that they take their IP so seriously and give out C&D notices like candy. Are they really that incompetent, or is this all some great strategy that us laymans just wouldn't understand? Because I'll be dumbfounded if GW somehow turn this around and come out the victor, there's no way.

notprop wrote: You should sued for bringing that to my attention.

If any of the lawyers that say they are on this thread actually are, I want a restraining order on the last poster preventing him/her/it from being within 50 meters of the Internet ever again on pain of waterboarding.

No one should have to see that gak!

lol, quite the overreaction there, buddy, over a fairly harmless image. Got something you want to tell us? Closet pony fan maybe?

Kroothawk wrote:I am getting the impression that Chapterhouse's lawyers are beginning to enjoy this "case", GW's lawyers not so much.

Their mail exchanges sure read like someone schooling a n00b in a forum flame war at least...

Sidstyler wrote:
...

I don't know what else to say, I'm still in awe over this. Almost a year on and GW hasn't been able to provide basic stuff that you would think they'd have access to at the click of a mouse, considering that they take their IP so seriously and give out C&D notices like candy. Are they really that incompetent, or is this all some great strategy that us laymans just wouldn't understand? ...

...

There is an adage that you should never ascribe to conspiracy what can be accounted for by incompetence.

PS: My Little Ponies are in SM armour to slow them down and make the game more fair.