Lone Wolf Development sends C&D to Privateer Press

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.

**Fateweaver**

If people are using AB to get around buying a codex that isn't on the shoulders of LWD to deal with, it's on the shoulders of GW to go after LWD if they feel it's harming business.

Saying AB is helping people rip off GW because you can build an army "list" with it is a moronic, knee jerk reaction. Look at most data files. I think all of them for certain units tell that person to reference the proper codex. Not owning the codex won't let you play using just AB.

The example people use is akin to trying to say that Apple is encouraging hackers by providing computers that allow hackers to connect to the internet. The simple solution would be to stop selling Macs that allow internet access because some nefarious user might decide to hack into Visa's mainframe and start stealing CC numbers. It's obviously Apples fault that someone is hacking into Visa Corps mainframe so maybe Visa should send a C&D to Apple telling them to stop supplying computers with network access.

See how moronic that sounds? It's the same thing as saying AB encourages people to not buy rules/army books for a particular army.

**Agamemnon2**

Fateweaver wrote:If people are using AB to get around buying a codex that isn't on the shoulders of LWD to deal with, it's on the shoulders of GW to go after LWD if they feel it's harming business.

The rightness of a course of action is unaffected by whether its illegality is actively enforced or not.

**faintpremonition**

Gornall wrote:You can use "Army Builder" when referring to the product itself, but you can't use "army builder" in a generic sense.

YOU can say whatever you want, in general. However a company in a similar market cannot use that particular copyrighted name to refer to similar products or services. Since PP owns the forums your ability say whatever you want in specific gets restricted. Companies have the right and responsibility to protect their copyright, those that don't may find their copyrights falling into public domain. Companies also have a right and responsibility to police their forums, as anything that is said on them is company property- same reason a company has every right to enact and enforce a "no porn" or "no links to your own products" rule. It's reasonable for a company to ask another company to not use their trademark on company own materials. That's basically what happened here.

Whether or not any of this was done in a dickish manner is open to interpretation and may cause the consumers to vote for or against a company with their dollars.

**Balance**

Fateweaver, I think the guideline for the thing is the primary purpose of the product. Some examples of this would be water pipes, lockpicks, etc. The case of Army Builder can be debated, but I'd say it isn't. Macs are general purpose tools, sot hey're in the clear.

Back on-topic, Wolf Lair does seem to have a case here as they're trying to prevent 'Army Builder', which is a term they seem to have invented, from ending up like Xerox or Jello. And that is their right. PP may have overreacted a bit.

It'll be interesting to see if PP 'raises the stakes' by competing with AB. I know they have that iBodger app for iPhones: Is it a full 'army creation tool' or just a reference source? Is it any good? Is it ever updated?

**fullheadofhair**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:Don't worry, Aggie.

THAT isn't why people think less of you.
; )

Haw haw haw, most droll. The addition of the smiley face was a nice touch, turning an otherwise drab and commonplace insult into spitting at my face. Thank you oh so very much, good sirs, for your continuing camaraderie and fellowship.

Well I thought it was funny. I certainly wouldn't think any less of you just because of your stance over AB.

In a way, I find your dislike of AB almost "quaint" but at least you can communicate effectively the logic behind your feelings. Not that what I think matters one iota to you. Which makes this post entirely pointless. Infact I think there is 30 secs of my life I need to get back.

oh, I need to add a smiley now?

**Gornall**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:If people are using AB to get around buying a codex that isn't on the shoulders of LWD to deal with, it's on the shoulders of GW to go after LWD if they feel it's harming business.

The rightness of a course of action is unaffected by whether its illegality is actively enforced or not.

If they're operating with permission of GW, then is it really illegal? TBH, I don't buy the AB violates IPs argument, simply because of my own observed annecdotal evidence that fits with LWD's view. That and if GW wasn't benefiting from it, then they would squash it. The fact that LWD is still updating datafiles for GW products tells me that GW thinks that it's beneficial enough to warrant letting it live. I think (just a guess) that GW views AB less as IP infringment and more as free "advertising". AB is like a teaser trailer for a new codex. Yeah, you know who's in it and a general story line, but if you want the details, you have to buy your movie ticket.

**MagickalMemories**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:Don't worry, Aggie.

THAT isn't why people think less of you.
; )

Haw haw haw, most droll. The addition of the smiley face was a nice touch, turning an otherwise drab and commonplace insult into spitting at my face. Thank you oh so very much, good sirs, for your continuing camaraderie and fellowship.

If you honestly took it as an insult or a 'spit in your face,' then you take the comment (and yourself) far too seriously.
The wink was intended to stress the fact that it was not a serious comment or even so much as a veiled insult.

[/OT] - Just wanted to clear it up.

Eric

**lord_blackfang**

Fateweaver wrote:If people are using AB to get around buying a codex that isn't on the shoulders of LWD to deal with, it's on the shoulders of GW to go after LWD if they feel it's harming business.

Saying AB is helping people rip off GW because you can build an army "list" with it is a moronic, knee jerk reaction. Look at most data files. I think all of them for certain units tell that person to reference the proper codex. Not owning the codex won't let you play using just AB.

The example people use is akin to trying to say that Apple is encouraging hackers by providing computers that allow hackers to connect to the internet. The simple solution would be to stop selling Macs that allow internet access because some nefarious user might decide to hack into Visa's mainframe and start stealing CC numbers. It's obviously Apples fault that someone is hacking into Visa Corps mainframe so maybe Visa should send a C&D to Apple telling them to stop supplying computers with network access.

See how moronic that sounds? It's the same thing as saying AB encourages people to not buy rules/army books for a particular army.

Wow, courts all over the world have been struggling with the legalities of torrent sites for years and you solved it all in one post.

**JRedbeard**

To Rob:

Just wanted to commend you for coming and taking your shots in this thread and communicating your intentions despite the usual whirlings of negativity around here.

That is all.

**fire4effekt**

Man you should see the size of the Army Builder i just took, nearly didn't flush.

**Agamemnon2**

fullheadofhair wrote:Well I thought it was funny. I certainly wouldn't think any less of you just because of your stance over AB.

In a way, I find your dislike of AB almost "quaint" but at least you can communicate effectively the logic behind your feelings. Not that what I think matters one iota to you. Which makes this post entirely pointless. Infact I think there is 30 secs of my life I need to get back.

Quaint, perhaps, but it suits my purpose. 90% of my armylists are built on the fly, and I seldom play the exact same list more than a few weeks at one go. And keeping a computer with me that can run an electronic list builder is out of the question (I've burned out on using computers a few years back, and try not to let them dominate my life overmuch anymore).

**privateer4hire**

fire4effekt wrote:Man you should see the size of the Army Builder i just took, nearly didn't flush.

Now this is just the toilet humor this thread needs. Well played, Sir. Well played, indeed.

**Valhallan42nd**

warboss wrote:
lonewolfdevel wrote:In any case, it's been done now, and it did achieve its ultimate goal with exceptional success. The improper use of our trademark across the PP forums is resolved *and* - more importantly - the miniatures community at large is now well aware of the trademark issue. Only time will tell whether it was the right call.

well, you've lost at least one customer here with this heavy handed approach. i used to praise your product and am the reason two new 40k players bought it in my local gaming group after i moved here and organized the club; i'll be sure to not speak of your trademark in the future.

Valhallan42nd wrote:
And even people with Army Builder tend to own the books, as Army Builder files tend to be written in a way so as not to tell the whole picture. As in an important rule might be referenced as "see page 32 of the codex". It allows theory hammer, but it subtlety encourages codex purchase to get the complete picture.

not exactly true. i've known plenty of people in the past that have army builder and referenced pirated copies of codices when they occasionally needed to, especially if they were new to the hobby or starting out a new army. gamers in general are stingy and many (not all though) will pirate something if they can. you would think that people wouldn't pirate iphone games since they cost $1 but recent reports from developers say that 80-90% of leaderboard entries are from pirated copies.

"And even people with Army Builder tend to own the books."

You took a statement with a qualifier and tried to turn it into an absolute. There are people who steal IP, and there will be people who continue to steal IP, regardless of the existance and/or non existance of Army Builder. I know this. Hell, even my copy of Army Builder is "stolen" (IE, I use the locked shareware version to experiment with various builds and such before committing them to my Excel Sheet). But the people who use copied codecies in my area are a minority. YMMV.

**Howlingmoon**

lonewolfdevel wrote:
filbert wrote:However, I think that trying to copyright a generic term such as Army Builder as pertaining to a piece of software is a losing battle

Hi guys. Since this event seems to have sparked all sorts of discussion, I'm checking into various forums and will attempt to clarify details that many of you might not be aware of. If you have questions about this stuff, please ask and I'll do my best to get you answers. Please be patient, though, since there's exactly one of me and I'm going to be spread rather thin as I try to do this in addition to everything else on my plate here at the office.

The first important detail is that this is a matter of *trademark*, which is *very* different from copyright. The rules are radically different for the two and have vastly different requirements associated with them.

To address the comment above, the term Army Builder was adopted back in 1998 when we first released the product. The term was trademarked shortly thereafter. There were a variety of terms used for the handful of game-specific, freeware tools at the time, and the term Army Builder was not in general use at the time. The success of Army Builder as a product, combined with the concise name, are what has made the term ubiquitous in the industry. It was *not* a matter of the term being well established and us just grabbing it - quite the opposite, in fact. It's actually 12 years of market prominence by the product that made the term so widely known, so the product itself created the need to actively police the term.

As for whether the trademark is valid, it was registered in the US a decade ago. So the US PTO granted it based on the term being deemed sufficiently distinct to allow for it. Since the trademark was granted, it fundamentally *is* valid. There is no question about that fact.

The problem that has ensued, and that led to us contacting PP about the issue, is a few Warmachine fans decided to call their own tools "Army Builder" and that numerous posters on their sites began using the term as a generic reference. Both of those are improper uses of the trademark, and, based on the rules associated with trademarks, we are *required* to police such uses.

The reaction chosen by PP was drastic in comparison to what they needed to do. In fact, a prominent notice to all forum users and a few well-placed posts could have been sufficient to rectify the situation. They elected to proceed in the manner they did. Based on communicating with their head of licensing on Friday, I had expected to speak with them about solutions today. Their severe reaction was a complete surprise to me.

Translation: Privateer is throwing toys.

**privateer4hire**

Looks like this story just got listed on The Miniatures Page (TMP), too. Our cottage laden industry drama continues.

**lonewolfdevel**

George Spiggott wrote:
Similarly perplexing is this:

Forward Kommander Website wrote:Note! This is not an "Army Builder". This application in which you can build armies can not be called "Army Builder", because a company called Lone Wolf owns the trademark on "Army Builder".
This is nothing more than a free advert for your product. How long is 'Freek Punt' expected to keep this free advert posted on his site for his totally unrelated army creator while you hold the threat of legal action over him?

That is entirely the idea of Freek Punt. From posts he's made in other places, I believe he views it as a dig back at us. I'm sure it's also a means to ensure that his site continues to appear when someone does an online search for "Army Builder". We had nothing to do with it whatsoever.

**privateer4hire**

Anybody remember that Space Marine list building program thingie that was out/going to be out a few years back? I'm guessing that went about nowhere since I haven't seen or heard tell in some time. What was it called if anyone can rememeber, I can't seem to find it's proper name on websearches.

**malfred**

Are you referring to the GW one, Armies of the Imperium?

**chaplaingrabthar**

GW did two "roster creation tools" Armies of the Imperium and Enemies of the Imperium. Unfortunately, unlike Army Builder(R) The datafiles were not updated and there was no real mechanism for upgrades.

Imperium is probably a trademark of Games Workshop. Army Builder is a registered trademark of Lone Wolf Development. They are used without permission in the above post, but this should not in any way be construed as a challenge to said trademarks.

**privateer4hire**

malfred wrote:Are you referring to the GW one, Armies of the Imperium?

I think that was it. Does it still exist? I can't find it on GW's site. Wondering if they ever succeeded with it or if it just went away.

**insaniak**

It just went away, as it was never updated.

**Fateweaver**

This thread looks to me like a bunch of WM fanbois are getting their panties in a bunch over someone trying to protect their IP and doing it nicely.

How is a C&D letter a dick move?

Do any of you have any idea what happens when you are found to be pirating movies for profit? You don't get a C&D. You get federal and local law enforcement agents knocking on your door. If you aren't home they find you and arrest you on the spot. You go away in handcuffs, your house is raided and everything that links you to movie piracy (computer, tapes, recorders) is taken from your home.

If you people think a friendly "please stop what you are doing" C&D is a dick move I could only imagine the tears you would shed if someone you knew got their home raided and arrested for movie/software piracy.

Yeesh. C&D is the NICE way of getting people to comply. The MPAA doesn't send C&D's. The FBI does not send a C&D if it gets a complaint about suspected movie/software piracy.

**lonewolfdevel**

chaplaingrabthar wrote:GW did two "roster creation tools" Armies of the Imperium and Enemies of the Imperium. Unfortunately, unlike Army Builder(R) The datafiles were not updated and there was no real mechanism for upgrades.

Imperium is probably a trademark of Games Workshop. Army Builder is a registered trademark of Lone Wolf Development. They are used without permission in the above post, but this should not in any way be construed as a challenge to said trademarks.

Two FYIs....

1. Prior to AoI and EoI, GW also released their Interactive Army List product. It's life as a product was very similar to those of AoI and EoI. A splash with no sustained updates. It's possible that you are remembering that product instead of AoI and EoI.

2. There is no need to include the "(R)" attribution with Army Builder in posts. All we want is that you use the term to reference the actual Lone Wolf Development product when using the term. I'm guessing you were having some fun with this, but there were no smileys, so I'm just making sure. :-)

One interesting note regarding item #1 above. Neither time when GW released their own product did they ever contact Lone Wolf Development about our ongoing support of their products. And I don't believe they contacted the data file authors either. So, even when GW introduced a competing tool into the marketplace, they didn't see fit to close down Army Builder. Twice.

I'm sure that means nothing moving forward, but I find it to be indicative that GW has viewed Army Builder as a boon to their products in the past. As for the future, who knows?

**Hawkins**

Well before the thread closes. lets not forget that 'Army builder' isnt the only program out there that complies armylists, i dont use army builder at all, but i do use a program strait off the web that does pretty much the same thing, but in a different format. If PP took this to an extream well no help for it, im not swayed either way.

**H.B.M.C.**

Fateweaver wrote:This thread looks to me like a bunch of WM fanbois are getting their panties in a bunch over someone trying to protect their IP and doing it nicely.

Yeah I gotta say this one seems pretty cut & dry to me.

LWD makes a product called 'Army Builder'. PP is attempting to use the name 'Army Builder'. LWD is protecting their trademark.

How is that a 7 page discussion?

Fateweaver wrote:How is a C&D letter a dick move?

When you've been tasked by the company in question with writing their living rulebook, then get stomped on for infringement. It's a dick move then.

**Fateweaver**

Wah?

H agreeing with me and not attacking me? I must be dreaming. Haha.

**warboss**

H.B.M.C. wrote:LWD makes a product called 'Army Builder'. PP is attempting to use the name 'Army Builder'. LWD is protecting their trademark.

How is that a 7 page discussion?

sigh... it becomes 7 pages when someone posts something completely untrue like you just did and people take it as fact. how is PP attempting to use the name? LWD isn't even accusing them of "using" the name but you seem content to do so.

**H.B.M.C.**

Fateweaver wrote:Wah?

H agreeing with me and not attacking me? I must be dreaming. Haha.

Bite me.

Is that better?

**Neconilis**

So they got upset that people were referring to their own army builders as an army builder and that others started referring to it as army builder as well?

Hmm...

Well all of this, all I can really say is hilarious.

**Kanluwen**

warboss wrote:
H.B.M.C. wrote:LWD makes a product called 'Army Builder'. PP is attempting to use the name 'Army Builder'. LWD is protecting their trademark.

How is that a 7 page discussion?

sigh... it becomes 7 pages when someone posts something completely untrue like you just did and people take it as fact. how is PP attempting to use the name? LWD isn't even accusing them of "using" the name but you seem content to do so.

*facepalm*

Okay: People were referencing Forward Kommander as "the" Warmachine Army Builder.

Following?

That statement, is in fact, not true as it is *a* Warmachine army builder. It has no official connections to LWD. The capitals make all the difference, as does the context.

It's the same difference between a coke and the Coke.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:How is a C&D letter a dick move?

When you've been tasked by the company in question with writing their living rulebook, then get stomped on for infringement. It's a dick move then.

It's also a dick move to start rabble rousing on the internet when you could simply alter your domain name.