Rumoured changes to GW release schedule because of Chapterhouse lawsuit

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.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

That is okay, that is why the Mods have moved the thread to Discussions.
Not sure why some folks seem to think the thread is wrong.
The whole basis of a lot of discussions about fluff is entirely theoretical.

Apart from the odd piece of vitriol there have been some useful and informed contributions on an issue that was starting to detract from the other thread. It was becoming increasingly necessary to move the debate into a sepearte thread to keep the other one on topic and open.

**candy.man**

It’s probably best for this thread to stay open so it can act as a Vitriol filter for the other CH Lawsuit thread.

**BeefCakeSoup**

I'm not waiting 10 years for GW to make a model.

If they won't make Las/Plas I'll buy it.

If they won't make Thunder Wolfs, I'll buy them too.

If a 3rd party is making money instead of GW, I'd suggest they step up their game in a the innovation department, not the legal battlefield. If I can't buy it from Chapterhouse I'll order it from China.

**timd**

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Anyway as we are finding out now, GW don't seem so sure what they have rights over...

This is going to be the interesting thing to watch.

In addition to to specifying how their copyrights have been infringed for each item they challenge, the are going to have to prove, in a court of law, that they own those copyrights to begin with, and that they are not derivative from previous copyrighted stuff or any other source (historical, etc.). If the defense can show that any of the features GW is challenging came from a non-GW source, then GW is going to have a hard time proving that they own the copyright to that item. (IANAL so this probably could be worded better, so have at it)

The old saw that GW steals ideas from everywhere may well get tested in this case.

Tim

**Kroothawk**

bolo wrote:This whole thread is continuing from a theory just he has put forward. I'm not sure why. The one non-hobby (and his hobby stuff is actually really cool!) statement he's made has been proven to be the completely wrong.

Either you are misinformed or deliberately lying.
StraightSilver gave us the information that most Dark Eldar stuff will be released within about half a year, including a flyer:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/327075.page
And whatever the source, this rumour fits and explains GW's current behavior.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:That is okay, that is why the Mods have moved the thread to Discussions.

This thread was started here and not moved by the mods.

**Agamemnon2**

mikhaila wrote:Definitely not true. Look at Dungeons and Dragons, and the OGL that WOTC allowed people to publish under for version 3.0 and 3.5, and how they tightened that up with 4th edition and companies had to purchase a liscenese to product products for it. And WOTC has got copyrights on all the MTG rules and mechanics.

This issue isn't quite as simple as that. In fact, at least one company has continued publishing for 4E without getting into WOTC's licensing scheme. The company in question, Kenzer & Co, is owned by an IP lawyer so they took advantage of the law every step of the way. Their current Kingdoms of Kalamar supplement is fully compatible with D&D 4E, and WOTC can do nothing to shut them down, or at least have made no efforts in that direction (neither did TSR when Kenzer did the same back in their reign).

**olympia**

BeefCakeSoup wrote:I'm not waiting 10 years for GW to make a model.

If they won't make Las/Plas I'll buy it.

If they won't make Thunder Wolfs, I'll buy them too.

If a 3rd party is making money instead of GW, I'd suggest they step up their game in a the innovation department, not the legal battlefield. If I can't buy it from Chapterhouse I'll order it from China.

Well said.

**Chibi Bodge-Battle**

This thread was started here and not moved by the mods.

Early morning brainstorm

Was getting mixed up with another thread Kroot, many apologies.

**Howard A Treesong**

timd wrote:
Howard A Treesong wrote:

Anyway as we are finding out now, GW don't seem so sure what they have rights over...

This is going to be the interesting thing to watch.

In addition to to specifying how their copyrights have been infringed for each item they challenge, the are going to have to prove, in a court of law, that they own those copyrights to begin with, and that they are not derivative from previous copyrighted stuff or any other source (historical, etc.). If the defense can show that any of the features GW is challenging came from a non-GW source, then GW is going to have a hard time proving that they own the copyright to that item. (IANAL so this probably could be worded better, so have at it)

The old saw that GW steals ideas from everywhere may well get tested in this case.

Tim

I don't thin the 'stealing from others' is a problem so much. It's valid to take inspiration while making it unique and therefore protected. Though GW trying to claim ownership of a certain 'chaos star' and 'inverted V shapes' is desperate in the extreme.

It was being discussed elsewhere that GW might not have secured the rights from the people who created them years ago. They are probably very careful about this now, but the haphazard way they operated 20-30 years ago may mean that they don't know for sure who owns the rights to some things. Unless they have the paperwork they could end up looking rather silly.

**notprop**

I think the proof in that pudding Howard is that GW have not been approached, let alone sued for any of the things that you identify.

What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

**Trasvi**

notprop wrote:What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

"You could have avoided a fight with the school bully if you just gave him your lunch money like everyone else does..."
GW have some fairly outrageous, all-encompassing claims on what copyrights and trademarks they own. CHS called their bluff and now GW is fighting a battle they've never fought before. And that is evident by the fact that, 10 months after filing the suit, GW still has yet to specify their claims or even prove ownership of works they claim are infringed.

**Kilkrazy**

notprop wrote:I think the proof in that pudding Howard is that GW have not been approached, let alone sued for any of the things that you identify.

What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

That isn't proof, it is the absence of proof.

No doubt most companies assumed that the game of taking on a £130 million giant like GW was not worth the candle, in many cases.

Take the Imperial Aquila, for example; why would anyone bother to test it in court, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds?

**olympia**

Trasvi wrote:
notprop wrote:What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

"You could have avoided a fight with the school bully if you just gave him your lunch money like everyone else does..."
GW have some fairly outrageous, all-encompassing claims on what copyrights and trademarks they own. CHS called their bluff and now GW is fighting a battle they've never fought before. And that is evident by the fact that, 10 months after filing the suit, GW still has yet to specify their claims or even prove ownership of works they claim are infringed.

Ouch.

**Sanon**

I didn't know about this stuff till now.

And it makes me laugh. Is GW really this sloppy? My god, it's pathetic given the size of their company, who knows how many other loop holes they didn't fill that could be easily taken advantage of.

Who knows how much of a hissy fit they'll throw once this is over, copyrighting -everything- in a mass exodus of dickery the likes of which haven't been seen since they decided to make online shopping illegal from anywhere but their own site.

**notprop**

Trasvi wrote:
notprop wrote:What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

"You could have avoided a fight with the school bully if you just gave him your lunch money like everyone else does..."
GW have some fairly outrageous, all-encompassing claims on what copyrights and trademarks they own. CHS called their bluff and now GW is fighting a battle they've never fought before. And that is evident by the fact that, 10 months after filing the suit, GW still has yet to specify their claims or even prove ownership of works they claim are infringed.

Who is bullying? What bluff was called?

If GWs bluff was called then this would not be infornt of a judge.

What I was originally getting at was that there was a point where this could have been resolved easily and without any harm to the involved parties. CHS were not as far as I can remember asked to close down, merely alter thier website.

The C&D letters that most seem to take such extreme objection to, certainly in the ones that I have seen, take the form of requesting changes or non-use of GW related terms. These have been sent either after or inconjunction with phone calls to explain the situation and what remdiation can be done.

I point you torwards the example of the chap that runs Battlescript, the armylist programme that also received a C&D. He posted here about how were actually GW very accomodating in overcoming the objections they had.

These C&D letters rather than being the implied arm-twist that many suggest they are, merely form the role of a Notice in the same way in which you might receive a reminder from a services provider. True that does make them part of a legal prcess, however minor.

As for taking 10 months, the many pages devoted to conjecture on Dakka highlight what a grey area all of this is. I have never seen any legal process take a short amount of time, why would you when you get paid by the hour?

**carmachu**

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

By that logic then, that same judge would then have to slap down GW for ripping off other people's IP from their effort to build their universe, right?

**notprop**

Only if these un-named individuals brought their own case i'm sure.

**carmachu**

DarknessEternal wrote:
If you do not attempt to maintain control of your intellectual property, you are not allowed to claim it. They were forced into action by the law.

Not quite. They were forced into action when their bluff was called when they sent out the C&D letter. Given how they acted during the case so far, it doesnt appear they were ready to do what they claimed in the letter when in court. They thought their general bully the little guy tactic was enough

**Sidstyler**

notprop wrote:I think the proof in that pudding Howard is that GW have not been approached, let alone sued for any of the things that you identify.

What really makes me groan about all of this is how easily it could have been avoided. If CHS would have changed their site to its current format on approach by GW rather than waiting until they were heading towards court, I believe that we woudn't have to have these labourious threads and the artificial GW/CHS divide that we seem to be creating on Dakka.

I think the reason they haven't been sued is because no one really gives a damn, honestly. The people who would be filing against them are probably so much bigger than GW that it really isn't worth it for them. Either that or they just aren't that dickish.

And I kind of agree, I think Chapterhouse shouldn't have been so blatantly advertising that their bits were made for 40k models. I mean it's obvious enough just from looking at the pictures (the GW carnifex with the tervigon kit on it for example), but I think what really got GW's attention was the fact that they were just coming out and telling you "These bits are made for Warhammer 40k Space Marines", that's just poking the bear. Although I'm kind of glad they did it anyway since it proved the big, scary bear apparently had a frontal lobotomy this whole time and wasn't really a threat to anyone. I like watching GW embarrass itself in court as it desperately tries to prove that it owns generic shapes and big pauldrons. And the aftermath will be even funnier, I bet. I fully expect them to just give up on the internet altogether and shut their own website down, convincing themselves that relying entirely on word of mouth and their physical stores will be enough to-oops, bankruptcy. Oh well. *Kirby retires with big gak-eating grin*

Sanon wrote:Is GW really this sloppy?

Apparently, yeah. And not surprisingly this comes as a shock to no one.

**notprop**

With you most of the way there Sid, right up until GW embarrasing themselves in court?

I have seen this allot on Dakka and still don't see it. I'm not saying that GW will win/lose or whatever but just because it wasn't a straight 6 (read "home run" in the colonies

) why are GW somehow failing?

I see this case as interesting since it is testing a grey area that might have some significant impact on gaming/modelling in general, but the whole yah-boo-sucks GW angle not so much.

**olympia**

Didn't chapter house score some hotshot firm to work pro-bono for them? Typically the cease-and-desist bully tactic works only if the people lack representation.

**carmachu**

Ian Sturrock wrote:

The OGL/d20 stuff with D&D 3/3.5 Edition is an interesting case. Although WotC deliberately opened up the rules, including allowing re-use of their copyrighted wording of many of the rules, it could be argued that no 3rd party d20 publishers actually needed licences unless they chose to use said exact wording, and unless they wanted to say outright "suitable for use with D&D 3". By signing up to a licence with WotC, they got certain benefits (no need to rewrite the rules; explicit agreement that they could claim compatibility) but also agreed to WotC's terms, including the term that WotC could terminate the contract at will, and the decency terms (introduced after the first d20 erotica book... I kid you not).

At least a couple of companies -- notably Necromancer Games -- actually produced d20-compatible material without a licence, quite successfully and without ever being sued by WotC.

Some companies happily used others' new game rules, even the ones that weren't designated Open Content, just by tweaking the wording slightly.

The tapping mechanic is indeed a patent of WotC's, though personally I doubt it would hold up to serious legal challenge. All it really does is act as a marker that that particular playing piece has been used, which to my mind is not especially innovative -- it's an obvious need in any game in which you can activate more than one playing piece in your turn.

Forget the OGL stuff. Once 4e hit and WOTC closed up its gaming license with the more restrictive GSL, a couple companies produced content without the license from what I call, only using copyright. Kenzer and company for example.

**AndrewC**

notprop wrote:With you most of the way there Sid, right up until GW embarrasing themselves in court?

I have seen this allot on Dakka and still don't see it. I'm not saying that GW will win/lose or whatever but just because it wasn't a straight 6 (read "home run" in the colonies ) why are GW somehow failing?

I see this case as interesting since it is testing a grey area that might have some significant impact on gaming/modelling in general, but the whole yah-boo-sucks GW angle not so much.

I think what Sid is getting at, and using your analogy, is that GW has always implied/stated that it will hit a straight 6 if ever it has to go to court.

I would, however, disagree with you on the 'might have', it will have a significant impact on the hobby. If GW lose then the other 3rd party companies will become more agressive in their marketing, website forums may begin to spring up again, eg the Bloodbowl fiasco. If GWs wins, for example the Space Marine colour chart become legally recognised, then painting companies are screwed; Customer "I want a dozen Ultramrines?" Painter "Sorry Blue marines with Omega signs are GW IP, I can't paint them that colour"

I don't think that CHS has done anything 'more' wrong than any other company, they used/tried to use GW Copyright under 'fair use' "These parts fit GW Space Marines" and were more obvious than others. As such were the company with its' head farthest over the parapet. To GW they were the easiest company to sue.

I can see GW overcompensating on the legal issues, maybe they did expect CHS to fold, maybe they didn't expect the case to go to court. But now they're second guessing everything to do with their products until some of the legal issues are settled, just so that they know where the line actually lies

Cheers

Andrew

**Saldiven**

Chimaera wrote:Any judge in the USA with half a brain could identify CHS are ripping the IP from GW.

Luckily, the vast majority of judges have at the very least three quarters of a brain and actually look at the laws involved when making their decisions.

So, tell me, Chim....where did you get your law degree from that makes you so certain in this case?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:What I was originally getting at was that there was a point where this could have been resolved easily and without any harm to the involved parties. CHS were not as far as I can remember asked to close down, merely alter thier website.

The C&D letters that most seem to take such extreme objection to, certainly in the ones that I have seen, take the form of requesting changes or non-use of GW related terms. These have been sent either after or inconjunction with phone calls to explain the situation and what remdiation can be done.

You're missing the point. CHS had legal representation that told them that CHS's business model was completely legal. GW sends a C&D that, according to CHS's councel, had no enforceable legal basis.

Why should CHS roll over when they honestly believe that they are in the right?

And, as we're seeing with the progression of the court case, it is becoming more and more apparent that CHS's original councel was correct.

**Sanon**

CHS wins.

Suddenly GW won't allow even customization to armies involving greenstuff or anything that wasn't directly bought from GW.

People laugh from the sidelines and play something else.

**nkelsch**

Sanon wrote:

People laugh from the sidelines and play something else.

I will believe it when I see it. Even the biggest GW haters on this site can constantly be caught with snorting the plasticrack where they say "I will never by GW again" and in the same day post in another thread "oh, that looks great, I will buy two of them!" Addictions are hell.

Since this is a game that requires other people to play it in order to have games, unless EVERYONE shifts to a new game, no one will shift to a new game. This is why in some areas it is hard to play anything but GW.

Whatever actions GW takes that 'harms' gamers, the gamers will still accept it with open arms and fork over fist-fulls of money.

**notprop**

Saldiven wrote:..............
You're missing the point. CHS had legal representation that told them that CHS's business model was completely legal. GW sends a C&D that, according to CHS's councel, had no enforceable legal basis.

Why should CHS roll over when they honestly believe that they are in the right?

And, as we're seeing with the progression of the court case, it is becoming more and more apparent that CHS's original councel was correct.

I don't think I was.

GW asked CHS to change aspects of their site.

CHS didn't and sought legal representation, got it and then changed their site.

A C&D is just a Notice that says here is the situation, [please] could you remedy this by X. Of course its not enforcable, it is advisory in its nature.

The point I was trying to make (however moot at this point in time) was; why not cut out the legal bit and change the site in the first place rather than getting a bee in your bonnet? Seems like allot less hassle to work with GW, a company that CHS states it likes than to go down this route.

One potential upshot of this in the event that GW wins, is that rather than having independent companies making various bits with tacit approval from GW (the sort of Gentlemans agreement that has seen many companies making GW related components), this may create the opposite situation where GW now has the enforcable position to stop this sort of activity for the whole 3rd party market.

It would be unfortunate if this transpired, however unlikely. I only say this as I just don't see GW as the feckless nincompoops that some would suggest that they are. They are a PLC, I do not imagine that they flitter money away on trivial legal matters without a sound basis. [Of course they might be, which is what makes this all so compelling!]

**Sanon**

nkelsch wrote:
Sanon wrote:

People laugh from the sidelines and play something else.
I will believe it when I see it. Even the biggest GW haters on this site can constantly be caught with snorting the plasticrack where they say "I will never by GW again" and in the same day post in another thread "oh, that looks great, I will buy two of them!" Addictions are hell.

Since this is a game that requires other people to play it in order to have games, unless EVERYONE shifts to a new game, no one will shift to a new game. This is why in some areas it is hard to play anything but GW.

Whatever actions GW takes that 'harms' gamers, the gamers will still accept it with open arms and fork over fist-fulls of money.

It being a social game is what makes it -more- likely that people will quit.

I'm just getting into the hobby, learned that my FLGS used to be mainly WH40K/WHFB. In less than a year, most of the people switched to Warmahordes with more switching at a steady basis. Most of the switchers won't even touch GW products any more.

**Phototoxin**

Any ideas on an expected end date for this lawsuit? I thought there is a right to a speedy trial in the US?

**Howard A Treesong**

Phototoxin wrote:Any ideas on an expected end date for this lawsuit? I thought there is a right to a speedy trial in the US?

I think that applies to criminal cases where an accused party has a right to have their name cleared and minimise the disruption to the life, assuming they are found innocent that is. This isn't a trial.

Civil cases can roll on as long as the lawyers wrangle while running up a large bill. Some legal battles can go on years and years. We could be having this conversation next year.