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.

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

while the Pauldrons may not be in the line of products, it might be worth mentioning Kromlech here....

frozenwastes wrote:basically the Japanese company that owned the designs did a poor job of licensing out their rights in the US. FASA acted in good faith and believed they had the rights to the designs, but the people who gave them the rights turned out to not have them to give. So FASA withdrew their products based on their designs.

Its actually a bit more involved than that. In Japan there were two different companies that claimed the rights to the Macross/Robotech mech designs... the animation studio that did the art claiming its rights derived from its preproduction art and animation for the show and the production company that distributed and marketed the show and all images contained. Under Japanese law both were entitled to sell these rights and posessing different sets of rights and licensing options. FASA bought the rights from animation studio and Harmony Gold bought the rights from the the distributor. Thus Battletechs designs are based on the "pre-production artwork" while Harmony Gold's rights are restricted to what appears within the original show. Simply the suit was never settled by a court decision, just by FASA deciding it wasn't worth any more money to fight.

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

As far as I can tell the comparison to aftermarket car parts isn't applicable simply because you don't want it to be. It's almost exactly the same thing, just with way more expensive toys.

I don't really see why it matters if cars are all made "in-house" or not.

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

Relevant precedent relies on similar facts, not exactly the same facts. This is a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit. Many unexpected cases will be potentially relevant depending on what argument one is making at any particular time. Car parts examples are actually particularly relevant. The similar facts are that accused works are aftermarket accessories designed for use with the asserted works. The automotive industry also generates copyrights inherent in the aesthetics of the vehicles.

Who controls the copyright is what is relevant in a copyright infringement suit. The only reason GW's "in house" design/manufacture is relevant is because it relates to GW's alleged ownership of the asserted works. It has little to do with isolated questions of whether an accused work is a copy of an asserted work. Thus, touting that the automotive industry is structured differently than Games Workshop does little to undermine the applicability of comparisons between copyright infringement vis a vis automotive copyrights and the lawsuit in question.

Shepherd23 wrote:To continue to defend GW with no other reason than "I like them and hate the stuff CH makes so GW must be right." is just foolish. If you wish to actually mount a reasonable defense for GW on this site I think that instead of just knocking down everyone's reasons for believing that GW is wrong, you should instead start to actually state legitimate reasons for why you believe GW is correct.

It does make for an interesting analog to how GW has conducted themselves in this case, however. This whole 'We are right whatever the cost, and facts be damned!' point of view.

A question for all legal folk:
Isn't it quite odd for a case that the judge gives the plaintiff a full year to provide the necessary basic data for filing a formally correct suit? Shouldn't he just have said: "Come back when you actually HAVE a case!" I doubt that such a long case without a formally correct filing would be legal in Germany.

Sidstyler wrote:As far as I can tell the comparison to aftermarket car parts isn't applicable simply because you don't want it to be. It's almost exactly the same thing, just with way more expensive toys.

I don't really see why it matters if cars are all made "in-house" or not.

It should be noted though, that even in the car accessory market (and similarly, in firearms industry) not everything is allowed: major manufacturers can and do sue if they feel that the parts you are offering violate their IP.

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

There is also the example of after market phone accessories, that he's conveniently forgotten. Both licensed and unlicensed companies produce perfectly legal "iPhone cases"... the only distinction being one allows your product to be sold in Apple's online store.

Going back to the car body kit example... The "not manufactured in house" kinda falls flat when you consider that most of those contracted companies are partially owned, often times split between several of the major automotive manufacturers. So its not as if their IP rights disappears just because the structure of their buisness is setup to shield different entities from liabilities.

aka_mythos wrote:

Spacemanvic wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Please refer me to the cases of third party companies manufacturing shoulderpads for toy soldiers which actually are relevant to the case.

The nearest example we always get is car parts, which isn't really applicable since in many cases the company selling the cars did not manufacture it all "in house" like GW does with their model kits.

Actually, the car parts example is very much applicable to the current issue, as we would be talking about after market parts, much like what CH produces.

There is also the example of after market phone accessories, that he's conveniently forgotten. Both licensed and unlicensed companies produce perfectly legal "iPhone cases"... the only distinction being one allows your product to be sold in Apple's online store.

Actually, I haven't forgotten them. I just don't find them any more relevant than the car example.

Going back to the car body kit example... The "not manufactured in house" kinda falls flat when you consider that most of those contracted companies are partially owned, often times split between several of the major automotive manufacturers. So its not as if their IP rights disappears just because the structure of their buisness is setup to shield different entities from liabilities.

This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sourclams wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:To continue to defend GW with no other reason than "I like them and hate the stuff CH makes so GW must be right." is just foolish. If you wish to actually mount a reasonable defense for GW on this site I think that instead of just knocking down everyone's reasons for believing that GW is wrong, you should instead start to actually state legitimate reasons for why you believe GW is correct.

It does make for an interesting analog to how GW has conducted themselves in this case, however. This whole 'We are right whatever the cost, and facts be damned!' point of view.

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

And really, I don't "hate the stuff CH makes". I find it outdated and very 'retro'(in terms of it looking like something that was produced by GW proper when I first started in 1997), but I know some people like it so more power to them.
Me? I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole, but I won't touch Forge World's "retro" stuff either so it's not a fanboy thing.
I'm very curious as to where the hell this idea that I'm defending Games Workshop "because I hate Chapterhouse".

Let me put it this way... what has CH actually done that substantively manipulates GW copyright? Their original claim wasn't even a case of copyright, it was with the "unfair" use of their trademark. Copyright prevents CH from copying GW's books and prevents CH from making copies of GW's models. CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.

But we're not discussing patents we're discussing trademarks and copyright. Bodykits just like model pieces are predominantly aesthetic components and thus they wouldn't be covered by a patent for those aesthetics. A copyright you're looking at exact instances of reproduction or nearly identical reproduction, but when the nature of the design is specifically for compatibility neither interfacing geometry nor aethetic blending play a part indetermining if somethings a copy.

Let's say you look at a bit is it an armored arm or is it a "space marine arm"? Copyright and trademark only cares when its identical or so intrinsict to the design and identity of the whole model.

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

If your argument is that you and Chapterhouse should be able to do whatever with GW's IP because the pooling of various car parts led to a "general" patent pool for aftermarket car parts manufacturers to play with today, I think you're slightly mistaken.


And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

And really, I don't "hate the stuff CH makes". I find it outdated and very 'retro'(in terms of it looking like something that was produced by GW proper when I first started in 1997), but I know some people like it so more power to them.
Me? I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole, but I won't touch Forge World's "retro" stuff either so it's not a fanboy thing.
I'm very curious as to where the hell this idea that I'm defending Games Workshop "because I hate Chapterhouse".

Kindly stick to the subject. We are not discussing "patents", we are disussing GW's inability to define what (if any) copyright has been violated by CH.

As of yet, GW has not been able to define what copyright was violated. The Court has been gracious to allow them to get their "act together" in the hopes that GW can articulate what it is they find objectionable in Ch's product/existence (aside from "We dont want them to 'be' ").

This whole scenario reminds me of the fool dog that barks it's head off and chases every passing car. One day, the dog actually catches a bumper and the driver comes to a stop. The dog is then at a loss as to what to do next. GW's been "barking" about it's IP for years, chasing other companies out of existence with C&D threats. CH has stopped the car to confront the dog, but the dog hasnt got a clue as how to proceed.

Bad dog!

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Kroothawk wrote:A question for all legal folk:
Isn't it quite odd for a case that the judge gives the plaintiff a full year to provide the necessary basic data for filing a formally correct suit? Shouldn't he just have said: "Come back when you actually HAVE a case!" I doubt that such a long case without a formally correct filing would be legal in Germany.

That's one of the major differences between German & US civil proceedings. US law allows for so-called "notice pleading," where you file a bare-bones allegation that you believe someone has infringed some right of yours. You then gain access to an incredibly broad discovery process, which you can use to flesh out your allegations until you have a case that stands up. There are limits, but they are largely discretionary.

(This is why some companies file lawsuits in both the US and Germany - you can use the US court proceedings to build enough of a case to file in Germany, where you will get results faster.)

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

My problem with this is that you don't acknowledge the real possibility that GW's over reaching. IF GW's is overreaching, as many believe, they are doing an injustice; they're effectively stealling away other peoples rights. It would be no different than a private individual claiming ownership of your car just because it looks like theirs.

sourclams wrote:
Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Ok, not a lot makes me actually lol on the internet anymore--but that did. That's some analogy--well done.

sourclams wrote:

And it's no different than the peanut gallery cheering for Chapterhouse because "feth Games Workshop!".

Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, I think a broader part of it, that has only developed more recently, is this transformation GW legal has made from Galactic Empire ala Empire Strikes Back to Imperious Forces ala Space Balls.

Would you mind if I quoted you in my sig? That is just priceless

Certainly you can!

Kanluwen wrote:This is a fallacy of the worst kind. Competition in the automobile industry with firms filing patents for different improvements, making it impossible for any one firm to produce a car with "all the latest advances" led to the automobile industry agreeing to pool all but the most important patents in 1915.

The only fallacy I see is in bringing up patent law in a discussion about copyright and trademark laws.

Trust the lawyer types in this one, Kanluwen. They've pointed out why the aftermarket auto parts industry might prove a valuable precedent in this case. Your opinion that it doesn't apply, especially when that opinion seems based upon irrelevant issues such as patent agreements, doesn't really matter.

I'll keep listening to the lawyers who post on this thread. Out of curiosity, are their any lawyers roaming this thread who agree with Kanluwen and think that the aftermarket auto parts industry has absolutely no bearing on the case in discussion?

sourclams wrote:Although I think there's certainly a degree of anti-GW sentiment fuelling the malicious glee with which those like Kroothawk are following this case, (...)

I am not anti-GW, spending too much time and money with GW products, but if GW management wants to crush obviously innocent (Paulson) or presumingly innocent (Chapterhouse) people by obviously unfair means, I don't want them to succeed.

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Just because you can be sued doesn't automatically mean you've done something legally wrong.

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Video games are not the same.
In order to make the expansion compatible, I presume you'd need access to their code and have to use that.
I'd also presume that said code is protected in some way (copyright, etc).

On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

If you can do that without utilizing any of their pre-written assets or directly copying (intentionally or unintentionally)... first I would say you could get a better job doing something else... second I would say congrats. Your analogy fails to grasp the reality of this case because 90% of the time compatibility for a video game requires decryption of the source files. That in itself without permission is illegal. The games that you can more easily mod are the ones where the game creator provided the mod making tools and those have end user agreements explicitly forbidding you from doing what your saying. Lets just for the sake of argument say a company has a game with no encryption and are using some publicly available open source game engine which doesn't have any restrictions or user agreements... and you made an expansion that ads on to that game... unless you're claiming intentionally or not to have created the original game what your doing would be perfectly legal.

derek wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:

CH isn't claiming the IP as its own. Its not altering anything. Its merely claiming compatibility.

If I was to make an expansion pack for a video game (compatibility), and charged money for it, and it contained only new assets I made...I would still be able to be sued over copyrights.

And thats the right thing.

Just because you can be sued doesn't automatically mean you've done something legally wrong.

I certainly hope someone has made this point before now...

MagickalMemories wrote:
On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Using their trademarks and flat out producing items labelled and represented as IP of GW is not. When you sell an alien spore pod, that's one thing. When you sell a "Mycetic Spore Pod", that's GW's IP you are intentionally reproducing and infringing on. When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors", that's flat out infringing on GW's IP. The differences are subtle, but clear, and Chapterhouse has very clearly crossed a line. When you make Combi-Meltas for Space Marines, yes sorry, that's not just little shapes that fit into others, you're intentionally using a label that is the IP of another party. These are all things Chapterhouse has done and can freely see on their website, and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement. It's not about the part itself, it's really about what you call it, though, there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I've got nothing against what Chapterhouse is trying to make or arguing that they aren't filling a market demand, but they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

Vaktathi wrote: When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors",

They're making "doors that can be used as salamander tank doors" and telling thats what they're for. What they are not doing is directly reproducing a sculpture someone else has already produced, and that's the only thing expressely forbiden by the law.

All they would have had to do was put "THIS PRODUCT NOT INTENDED TO BE USED FOR MODELING TOY ARMIES." and say it was a small scale sculpture

Vaktathi wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:
On the other hand, making little shapes that fit onto someone else's little shapes is entirely different.

Eric

Using their trademarks and flat out producing items labelled and represented as IP of GW is not. When you sell an alien spore pod, that's one thing. When you sell a "Mycetic Spore Pod", that's GW's IP you are intentionally reproducing and infringing on. When you make "Fire Lizard Tank Doors", that's one thing, when you make "Salamanders Space Marine Rhino doors", that's flat out infringing on GW's IP. The differences are subtle, but clear, and Chapterhouse has very clearly crossed a line. When you make Combi-Meltas for Space Marines, yes sorry, that's not just little shapes that fit into others, you're intentionally using a label that is the IP of another party. These are all things Chapterhouse has done and can freely see on their website, and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement. It's not about the part itself, it's really about what you call it, though, there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I've got nothing against what Chapterhouse is trying to make or arguing that they aren't filling a market demand, but they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

Pardon me if this seems confrontational. It's not meant to be, but I can't think of any clearer way to ask this question than directly:
Do you realize that simply claiming to own the IP on something does not mean that you do?

GW cannot own "spore pod" and just because they are the first (AFAIK) to use the word "Mycetic," that will not automatically give them 100% ownership over it. People invent words all the time.

GW did not create "Space Marines." That much has been covered. They also did not create the Salamander. Just because they put the two together, that will not automatically give them ownership over the entirety of the term. Simply CLAIMING ownership of something does not give it to you. If it did, I would have a MUCH larger house and FAR nicer cars.

and by any reasonable measure would constitute IP infringement

Can you please cite your legal background that gives you the ability to say this with such confidence?

there is also an argument that intentionally designing components for compatability with a proprietary IP product is also infringement.

I have yet to see one based in legal precedent. The lawyers monitoring this thread (people far more qualified than I and, presumably, you) have repeatedly stated the legality of said actions.

they're going out of their way to make it as loud and clear as possible that they are making Warhammer 40,000 bits and models and even using distinct unit terminology, something only GW and licensed partners can legally do, which Chapterhouse cannot be counted among.

GW does not make the law. Remember that they can ASSERT any claims they want. They can make all sorts of claims on their website about what we can and cannot do "with their IP." Until it's backed up legally (which has not been done), however, it is simply not true.

I believe that there are a number of people whose beliefs are in line with your own who will be in for a BIG surprise at the end of this fiasco, should it ever see court. I'm more inclined to think there will be a number of "told ya so's" when the judge throws the case out because GW is full of it (obviously not a legal term).


Eric