Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**Breotan**

Mr. Burning wrote:If this bounces CHS way would it be possible for them to sue others if they are first to market?

Anyone can sue for pretty much any reason. It still costs money though and I don't see CHS doing very much litigation. Winning this case would not mean that CHS could claim copyright on SM shoulderpads. CHS's position as litigants against other parties would likely be the same as GW's is currently so I'd expect trash talk > litigation.

**Kroothawk**

The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.

Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

**FabricatorGeneralMike**

Kroothawk wrote:The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.

Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

It looks like the sharks smell blood in the water and are starting to circle....Hopefully he can get this case back on track.

**Howard A Treesong**

What makes this person special or indicates an more aggressive approach against GW?

**Kroothawk**

25+ years of practice, Practice Areas: Intellectual Property Litigation (70%), and being official "Super-lawyer":

http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/lawyer/Dean-A-Morehous-Jr/02f99403-3a91-48b6-b977-30e64a46aec1.html

**infinite_array**

...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

**PhantomViper**

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

I know I would!

**biccat**

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

Even if that type of case existed, it wouldn't necessarily be controlling.

However, if you want to discuss the broader issue of copyright infringement, particularly with respect to derivative works, we can discuss that.

Kanluwen wrote: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.

You're right that those cases aren't applicable, but you're wrong on why. They aren't applicable because those products are usually lacking the creative step required for copyright protection. And even if they have the required creativity, failing to manufacture products "in house" wouldn't destroy their copyright protection.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Janthkin wrote:
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.

Also, pleading requirements for copyright are pretty clear. I think a good case can be made that even the minimum requirements of notice pleading haven't been met here.

**Howard A Treesong**

infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Does he wear a cape?

**RiTides**

Looks like my panic buys from CH were premature! Good to see their law firm is bringing out the big guns...

**Aerethan**

I wonder if this means that CHS legal team will point out to the judge that GW hasn't claimed anything specific in their suit so far, and I wouldn't be surprised if they called for the suit to be thrown out entirely on that basis(not sure if they can).

I'd hate for this to get dragged out another year, but if it goes the way it looks now, it will be worth the wait.

**AgeOfEgos**

I would absolutely love to see this conclude in an actual decision--and have it decided on the merits of the case v. whom has the most funds/amount of legal representation.

**Arander**

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would absolutely love to see this conclude in an actual decision--and have it decided on the merits of the case v. whom has the most funds/amount of legal representation.

You and me both. Chicago is only a couple of hours drive for me. I would totally take a few days off work to go down and actually watch this case. Law and Order live!!

**Adam LongWalker**

Kroothawk wrote:The Chapterhouse side now features a new lawyer: Dean Allen Morehous JR. Seems W&S is now going for the killing strike (thanks to Warseer for finding this):

Official Company Bio wrote:Of counsel Dean Morehous is resident in the firm’s San Francisco office. Mr. Morehous has substantial litigation experience in intellectual property, technology matters, insurance coverage, and general litigation. He also handles complex corporate and trust litigation.

In his 25 years of practice, Mr. Morehous has successfully litigated numerous high-stakes technology and intellectual property matters. He has represented major clients in patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, unfair competition, licensing, and entertainment disputes. He also has broad experience in trade secret, technology defect, systems integration, and software cases. Mr. Morehous also advises clients in a variety of licensing and technology audit matters.

Education
Mr. Morehous received a B.A., magna cum laude, in Political Science from the University of California, Los Angeles in 1979 and a J.D. in 1983 from the University of California, Davis.

This pleases me. Everything is going according to the plan.

**Fat_Little_Ripper**

The way I see it is that both sides are guilty in this case. Games Workshop (or rather the people in charge of GW) for playing the 800 pound gorilla with their Cease and Desist orders, and Chapterhouse Studios for pushing a bit too close to the line of infringement (with their "Doom of Malan'tai" for example) . I really just want to see this case reach its conclusion, no matter what the outcome is.

**Adam LongWalker**

Fat_Little_Ripper wrote:The way I see it is that both sides are guilty in this case. Games Workshop (or rather the people in charge of GW) for playing the 800 pound gorilla with their Cease and Desist orders, and Chapterhouse Studios for pushing a bit too close to the line of infringement (with their "Doom of Malan'tai" for example) . I really just want to see this case reach its conclusion, no matter what the outcome is.

Unless you have ever been sued before or have be the one that is bringing on the litigation you have no idea on how long these things can take.

I have been on both sides of the fence in this situation. 4 1/2 years it took me to successfully sue a corporation. The delays and changes to the docket are a normal thing now.

This case is going to take some time. Be patient. It will work itself out. But the sharks do smell blood. I have stated that Games Workshop picked on the wrong person.

And as I have stated in my previous post.

This pleases me. Everything is going according to the plan

**paulson games**

Arander wrote:You and me both. Chicago is only a couple of hours drive for me. I would totally take a few days off work to go down and actually watch this case. Law and Order live!!

Having been there it's really boring.

Each time I went I wasted a couple hours riding the train downtown and waiting around the courthouse. When the case gets called it's up in front of the judge for about ten minutes, probably less. Unless you are in the very front row you can barely even make out what's being said as the entire room is designed to absorb sound. It's a total waste of a day for 5 minutes of nonsense.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
infinite_array wrote:...Can you actually have 'Super-Lawyer' put onto a business card?

Does he wear a cape?

No capes, although I believe this is the established super lawyer dress code.

HAHA!

**CorvidMP**

Howard A Treesong wrote:What makes this person special or indicates an more aggressive approach against GW?

I only have passing familiarity with the civil side of the law as a police officer, but it kinda strikes me as a big deal that they drafted an experienced IP lawyer from halfway across the country for a freaking pro-bono defense seems like it might be a pretty big deal, as it was my understanding that often a lot of the pro-bono stuff at big firms is usually relegated to newer lawyers.

This is assuming of course they just aren't consulting him on some details.

**Kilkrazy**

This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

**CorvidMP**

Kilkrazy wrote:This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

Or it could mean the newbs initially assigned to the case got out of their depth

not a lot of info for us laymen to go on really lol.

I do know enough to know it's likely pretty significant what ever the hell it means though, I'd be real curious to hear Biccat's thoughts on the new layer.

**sourclams**

Don't know if it was Biccat or Weeble or someone else, but in the earlier stages of the case when CH had just gotten pro bono representation it was suggested that the representing firm might want to take this case in order to set precedent for a much bigger case (and paycheck) down the line.

**infinite_array**

sourclams wrote:Don't know if it was Biccat or Weeble or someone else, but in the earlier stages of the case when CH had just gotten pro bono representation it was suggested that the representing firm might want to take this case in order to set precedent for a much bigger case (and paycheck) down the line.

That's not a bad idea. If they can win the case, then they become the best bet for anyone else who has this kind of problem again - even, perhaps, GW?

**aka_mythos**

biccat wrote:

Kanluwen wrote: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.

You're right that those cases aren't applicable, but you're wrong on why. They aren't applicable because those products are usually lacking the creative step required for copyright protection. And even if they have the required creativity, failing to manufacture products "in house" wouldn't destroy their copyright protection.

What are you talking about? The clay and digital models created by the OEM in designing the door is copyright protected, precisely for the creative energies that go into them; the physical door is derivative of that work. A new door designed solely to interface in the absence of the original part and blend in with the rest of the vehicle independent of those models however isn't derivative, its based on function.

**chaos0xomega**

Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

**Alpharius**

Just read the last few pages for the recent news.

The fact that CH has pro-bono representation from a major law firm is in fact true, and is also really, really OLD 'news'...

**Kroothawk**

chaos0xomega wrote:Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

Summary: GW is trying to file its first formally correct IP lawsuit, they failed to meet the minimum standard requirements for a year now but were given even more time for their attempt. The person they accused on obviously false accounts (with or without intent) is out of the case with prejudice. The behavior of GW's lawyers is odd and not helpful to win the case, observers are discussing the reasons for that, with incompetence being one of the possible reasons.

**biccat**

chaos0xomega wrote:Hey guys, for those of us that haven't been paying attention for the past 50 or so pages, anyone care to fill us in (maybe an update in the first post?) Last I read, CH was getting free/pro-bono representation from a major legal firm...

GW files a complaint, CH moves to dismiss, GW gets a chance to revise claims.

GW fails to revise claims, asks for early discovery, we enter early discovery (basically both sides ask for information from the other).

GW and CH answer some requests, refuse to answer others, court orders settlement negotiation.

This negotiation has the expected result, both sides offer opposing objections, GW moves for more time to revise claims.

Court sets a trial date.

aka_mythos wrote:What are you talking about? The clay and digital models created by the OEM in designing the door is copyright protected, precisely for the creative energies that go into them; the physical door is derivative of that work. A new door designed solely to interface in the absence of the original part and blend in with the rest of the vehicle independent of those models however isn't derivative, its based on function.

OK, it depends on what types of car parts we're talking about. I assumed we were discussing things like car seats, alternators, engine components and the like. These wouldn't be copyrighted because they're functional.

If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

Kilkrazy wrote:This is pure speculation on my part but the reason for assigning the Big Man at this stage might be to send a signal to the other side that they are out of time and need to put up or shut up.

Personally, I think they're simply bringing in an experienced litigator to handle the actual trial. But there could be any number of reasons.

**chaos0xomega**

Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

**Sidstyler**

If we're talking about the car body or other aesthetic parts, then you're right.

But if they're all copyrighted and protected then why do sites/companies exist that sell body kits? In some cases you can even buy replacements that are made to look exactly like stock parts, namely spoilers.

**Kroothawk**

chaos0xomega wrote:Thanks for that! So basically there has been no movement on the case, just an endless dance around the ring while they size eachother up and figure out how they are going to go about it.

Basically yes, but with one side paying big money for waiting, using every trick in the business to not even meet the minimum formal requirements for starting the case. So it's not "big bully eats small kitten for breakfast" as some expected but "big bully tries not to be eaten by small kitten with chances getting worse".