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.

Back in Rogue Trader, back when 80s metal and studded leather jackets were popular.

odinsgrandson wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:While I don't want any bitz sites to go down (variety is the spice of life, yes?), I can't help but feel like CH shot themselves in the foot by not playing the "it's a space-man upper arm protector shield, *hint hint*" game.

Most of the other bitz sites barely hide the intent of their products. It's obvious what is designed for what, and such details are often heavily hinted at in product descriptions. CH could have saved themselves a lot of trouble (perhaps not all the trouble, but they could have been much more secure) if they simply made all the product names/descriptions generic.

I realize it's silly to look at a thunder hammer and read "star-viking war god's smashy stick," but if it'll protect bitz sites from GWs zealous legal team, why not do it?

EDIT: Unless of course GW just hasn't gotten to all the more clever sites yet*

As far as I can tell, this is exactly what the case is about. Is there any reason why Scibor has to name is bits "Parts for Space Vikings?" As long as he's not copying exact designs, or claiming that he's making Games Workshop's Space Wolves, he shouldn't have to fake it.

It makes me think of Xbox or laptop stickers made by third parties. They always will tell you exactly what model they fit on. No one has any problem when people do this in other industries. Why should games be any different?


Taking a look at the bits I've seen, I don't think they've matched any insignias close enough to infringe. For example, the Salamander/Dragon shoulderpads do not look exactly like the Salamanders insignia from GW. And Games Workshop cannot copyright the idea of a dragon on a shoulderpad.

The key thing here is that its different here is that you can't use these parts interchangeably between PP, GW, or other models. The game was developed and marketed by GW. Its not like PP makes warhammer models. Thats what they are fighting. If you develope a set of games and someone else wants to profit off of your expense, then they should be paying a royalty or licensing fee. Thats how it works in other industries. It wouldn't be unreasonable for GW to tell them if you make parts for our product, you will be required to pay a 10-25% royalty fee. Its a niche business - Chapterhouse wouldn't exist if GW didn't make models and customers wouldn't buy chapterhouse if GW made something comparable they could force chapterhouse to cease and desist selling it if they made something comparable (GW could tell chapterhouse to stop selling rhino replacement parts and termie shoulder pads as they are in direct competition).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Howard A Treesong wrote:

Polonius wrote:And, if my limited research and understanding of Janthkin's prior posts are correct, there is very little "on point" case law here.

Meaning, it's not just that nobody knows exactly how this case should go down. It's that there is actually some unanswered questions of law that could wildly swing this case.

It does say something that there was a lot of discussion based on the aftermarket car parts industry, that's pretty tenuous link. Little toy men are not something typically fought over in the court room. GW might want to argue they are pieces of art, but they just look like toys to other people, especially as their core market is kids. Any precedents and case law brought into it might be quite diverse.

Thats my point - the product has a specific purpose and there are no competitors with the specific purpose of using the model to play warhammer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
You're either incredibly young or incredibly naive. The lawsuit is more about trying to eliminate potential future competition, and to be the sole source provider of everything relating to its product line(what Chapterhouse is doing isn't all that dissimilar from how GW got its start. Rather than just producing bits though, GW produced whole models for other companies role playing games). GW goes after all manner of organizations, regardless of whether or not they actually sell anything that can be perceived as 'stealing money' from them. Most of the time, these frivolous lawsuits, scratch that, this bullying, does not go to court, and does not cost GW very much money at all, because they are targeting small mom and pop/basement operations that can't afford the legal fees, and thus they agree to GWs terms and settle out of court (usually this results in the company in question shutting down entirely). This time theiir target actually happened to be able to fight back, much to GWs surprise.

Just so I understand you correctly, GW shouldn't be the only producer for the bitz and miniatures it makes for the game they developed? Personally, I don't see it as a problem. The way I see it as if you make money off of my work, you should pay me. If I develop something that you are going to change it slightly and then profit off of my marketing and sales then yes I would be upset. As it stands now, I would be upset that Chapterhouse made parts for a rhino - that is in direct competition to what I make and sell as an upgrade bit. Its my IP, I wouldn't want someone stealing a sale from me. I would demand they pay me a royalty or at the very least a licensing fee. I can see where GW is coming from on this.

derek wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

GW via Kroothawk wrote:
c. Chapterhouse is selling shoulder pads for Space Marines featuring symbols and bearing other unique expressions taken from a number of Games Workshop’s Assault and Tactical Space Marine unit types. For example, many of the shoulder pads that Chapterhouse is selling bear not only the unique expressions described above as applying more generally to Games Workshop’s products but also have studs, arrow and cross arrow designs, inverted “V” and Roman numeral icons, as well as icons associated with a number of Games Workshop’s proprietary Chapters, including the Black Templars, Blood Ravens, Thousand Sons, Blood Eagles, Celestial Lions, Exorcists, Flesh Tearers, Howling Griffons, Imperial Fists, Iron Snakes, Soul Drinkers and Salamander Chapters. Chapterhouse is also selling pads that convert standard Games Workshop Space Marines into characters for other Chapters, such as the Salamander and Fleshtearers Chapters, and which borrow unique expressions relevant to that Chapter which are proprietary to Games Workshop.

I believe the word they are looking for here is chevron.

Using the actual term that has existed for hundreds of years would require them to admit that they didn't invent it.

I can't believe they cite things like studs, arrows and roman numerals as well. No wonder they are under a bit of pressure to be more specific, it's just ridiculous. Most of the Space Marine chapters are derivative in some nature, it's probably a hand-down from the rogue trader days when everything was a spoof or parody of something. The distinguishing crosses on Black Templars, first on their list, of are Maltese crosses and a good bit older than GW and rather in the public domain. Same with chevrons, or tear drops on blood angels. As for 'studs', well I guess space marines first had studs because they first appeared in the 80s when everything had studs so they weren't exactly original.

Kroothawk wrote:Fun fact: CHS has the permission by Michael Moorcock to use the Chaos Star, GW doesn't

Haha thats great..

Does anyone with knowledge of this situation know how long this is likely to take?

And also, how much it will be costing GW?

So, armour with chaos stars on was probably invented by Michael Moorcock in the 60s (he certainly had chaos warriors, and invented the symbol... it's been a while since I last read Elric and Corum et al though).

Armour with studs on was invented by bikers and punk rockers and New Wave Of British Heavy Metal fans in the 60s and 70s and 80s, or earlier. D&D had studded armour in the 70s too.

The Ancient Romans invented Roman numerals, and even had armour with chevrons on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newstead_Helmet

GW's lawyers will be in touch with August Caesar about those things and about the word "Emperor" shortly, apparently...

Arrows, chevrons, and Roman numerals have all been used in heraldry well before GW's use, too, in medieval times and in more modern regimental symbolism. Likewise, though the D&D "studded leather armour" is a Victorian invention, it's based on studded brigandines and maybe even studded jacks, which really did exist.

Edit -- found some historical studded shoulder armour -- Mongolian, I believe:

http://image57.webshots.com/457/5/28/60/2346528600100599642KJNzxn_ph.jpg

So, armour with chaos stars on was probably invented by Michael Moorcock in the 60s (he certainly had chaos warriors, and invented the symbol... it's been a while since I last read Elric and Corum et al though)

The funny thing is: it actually looks like Moorcock didn't invent the symbol, he just popularized it and associated it with the idea of Chaos.

Just sayin'. Google Alestair Crowley's "Thoth Tarot Eight of Wands" and see what comes up as an image

Ha, true enough! I'm prepared to see Moorcock's use of it as independently arrived-at, though, personally, since Crowley didn't associate it with Chaos per se AFAIK (he did have Chaos as a concept in his cosmology -- Chaos was the original mate of the Scarlet Woman, Babalon, later supplanted by Crowley / The Great Beast).

Of course, Moorcock's symbol of Law was a single arrow, pointing upwards, as though to signify the enemies of Chaos personified as a... Tactical Space Marine.

Big P wrote:Someone take the GW-Dripfeed out of his arm... He is ODing.

OD'ing? Dude, that thing sustains him. Taking out would likely cause damage, and I don't want any harm coming to The Kan. He's far too entertaining.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?

My layman's opinion would think not.
I mean, THEY are paying their lawyers, while CHS is getting their lawyer's time for free. In that circustance, it's CHS with the deeper pockets.
Not to mention the ill will they're generating within the online gaming community. Those disenfranchised among us are getting even more restless with every new development.


Eric

Kilkrazy wrote:
My layman's opinion would think not.

They keep a person or team on retainer like any good corp. Also, this has probably already been said but it may totally depend on how much time they are willing to devote to the case.

If i were GW i would hope Chapterhouse to fold like a lawn chair and use this a landmark. The last thing i would want is to drag this out to the point where i have to prove losses to a court.

My personal opinion? Competition is good, i hope GW walks into this gets their knuckles rapped and realizes they can't leave people hanging on a limb for models and not expect someone else to fill the gap. A third party market is a sign of a healthy game system (How many people do you see making things for fantasy, amirite???)

My argument for Chapterhouse:
If GW wasn't willing to invest the opex into the budget to provide models in a manner fitting their current release schedule then there is no loss to their bottom line. They simply have chosen not to enter into the market with said models.

Even with everything i know or can theorize i haven't a clue on how GW can prove they have been impacted by these sales.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Ha, true enough! I'm prepared to see Moorcock's use of it as independently arrived-at, though, personally, since Crowley didn't associate it with Chaos per se AFAIK (he did have Chaos as a concept in his cosmology -- Chaos was the original mate of the Scarlet Woman, Babalon, later supplanted by Crowley / The Great Beast).

Of course, Moorcock's symbol of Law was a single arrow, pointing upwards, as though to signify the enemies of Chaos personified as a... Tactical Space Marine.

Wow yes, your last point is an interesting observation!

I always got the impression that Moorcock believed he was writing something which already existed, in the same way that two groups of scientists operating on different sides of the world can come to the same conclusion about something, or make the same development even though they have no contact with each other. As in, it is a construct which already exists, and could be reached through logical thought.

Although to be honest, modern GW's concept of 'Chaos' has so little similarity with the original idea that really it is only the design of the 8-pointed star that connects them.

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?

Normally yes, its most of the strategy. Bleed them to death.
Pro bono by a major firm (I don't know who is representing them) could be problematic in that area.

Boyd- It doesn't really matter how you "feel". The law doesn't protect feelings :-) The question is one of infringement. If you make little toy men and I make little toy guns that work with your little toy men, you do not automatically get my sales money. Please do not pile on more soapbox arguments that have no basis in the law.

As to the development, LOL. So GW clarifies their claim by giving examples of blatantly unprotectable insignia and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....

jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....

Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.

biccat wrote:

jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....

Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.

Oh, I am well aware. But the language stating that D knew more about it than we can really state was humorous since is Plaintiff's burden to establish the infringement and the link between the protected work and the derivative.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Do you think it is in the interests of GW to draw out proceedings?

Normally yes, its most of the strategy. Bleed them to death.
Pro bono by a major firm (I don't know who is representing them) could be problematic in that area.

That is what I had been thinking -- glad to have it confirmed by a lawyer.

jmurph wrote:

biccat wrote:

jmurph wrote:and relying on the defendant's knowledge. At this rate, they are going to plead themselves right out....

Access to the copyrighted material is an element of copyright infringement that GW has to prove. Unlike other areas of IP law, independent creation is a defense to copyright infringement.

Oh, I am well aware. But the language stating that D knew more about it than we can really state was humorous since is Plaintiff's burden to establish the infringement and the link between the protected work and the derivative.

I just read it as standard pleading language. "We don't know where you took it from, but we know you had access to some of our materials and you copied our work." I'm sure it will all be addressed during discovery.

Frazzled: Winston & Strawn are representing Chapterhouse.

I'm watching this progress with quite a bit of curiosity. I'm really hoping GW losses this one. I think small companies like Chapterhouse do far more good for the hobby, than Harm.

Interesting. I wonder if its a Jr. Flunkey or they are putting strength behind it...and why.

Do we know who's representing GW?

If nothing else, GW looking the part of an overbearing bully beating on a little kid in the playground is providing ample advertising for Chapter House. I'm not saying that they shouldn't defend what they consider their IP (though I have my doubts they invented Roman Numerals or various other things they've listed).

Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.

agnosto wrote:Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.

Except GW can sue any new bitz makers. They can even sue CHS for any new works they consider infringing on their IP.

It's not like this case wil stop GW from being to either harrass small bitz makers with law suits, or even win.

Frazzled wrote:Interesting. I wonder if its a Jr. Flunkey or they are putting strength behind it...and why.

Do we know who's representing GW?

Not sure about GW. Presumably if you have a PACER account you could look up who is signing the filings (assuming GW isn't filtering everything through their general counsel).

On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.

Polonius wrote:

agnosto wrote:Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.

Except GW can sue any new bitz makers. They can even sue CHS for any new works they consider infringing on their IP.

It's not like this case wil stop GW from being to either harrass small bitz makers with law suits, or even win.

I was thinking along the lines of risk vs. reward; if they spent all their resources filing lawsuits in other countries, and even losing one or two, they would be paying more in legal fees/ court costs than would be returnable in fines if they even won.

As I'm sure you're aware, it's all fine and good to say that an attorney is on retainer but retainer doesn't usually include all the court costs, travel expenses, hourly rates in excess of the retainer and other contingent fees. Lose one lawsuit and GW would be looking at a big tab, especially if someone wins a counter claim that resulted in GW paying the defendant's court costs and reasonable attorney fees.

Wow...I got quoted from another web site...

IIRC, CHS has 4 attorneys with Notices of Appearance, and GW has 3. They are all from big time law firms.

I could check Pacer, but I'm actually trying to be productive today...

Games Workshop’s background works, such as an arrow for the Tactical Squad, the use of Roman numerals, inverted “V” icons and other iconography and heraldry specific to
the Chapter and squad to which a soldier belongs.

http://www.tankzone.co.uk/pages/ww2_german_tank_info.htm

because nooobody else would ever think of doing such a thing.

biccat wrote:
On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.

http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemid=13554

"Ms. Golinveaux also has significant experience managing international trademark portfolios, and providing trademark and copyright counseling. She has litigated a number of matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and handled a number of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings."

Seems like she specializes in digital copyright, specifically cyber-squatting.

agnosto wrote:If nothing else, GW looking the part of an overbearing bully beating on a little kid in the playground is providing ample advertising for Chapter House. I'm not saying that they shouldn't defend what they consider their IP (though I have my doubts they invented Roman Numerals or various other things they've listed).

Whoever wins, I expect we will witness a fairly large change in the way our hobby develops from here on out. If CH wins, there will be increased competition as more "bits" and unsupported models are brought into the market. If GW wins, we'll say goodbye to competition as less availability of GW alternatives will be released.

Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

agnosto wrote:

biccat wrote:
On the Chapterhouse side, they have claimed a partner (Jennifer Golinveaux) is representing them, but who knows what the scope of her activities are.

http://www.winston.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemid=13554

"Ms. Golinveaux also has significant experience managing international trademark portfolios, and providing trademark and copyright counseling. She has litigated a number of matters before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and handled a number of Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) proceedings."

Seems like she specializes in digital copyright, specifically cyber-squatting.

Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.

I wouldn't even dream of making it understood as anything but my humble opinion. I was simply thinking along the lines that lawsuits aren't free and GW isn't the richest firm in the world and if they are spending a larger than anticipated amount on legal fees that's less development of their product which is bad for us.

Frazzled wrote:Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!

Don't say that; I own GW stock.

agnosto wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully, that is merely your opinion.

I wouldn't even dream of making it understood as anything but my humble opinion. I was simply thinking along the lines that lawsuits aren't free and GW isn't the richest firm in the world and if they are spending a larger than anticipated amount on legal fees that's less development of their product which is bad for us.

Frazzled wrote:Interesting. This could actually be a stand up fight then. Being that GW is crap all size wise, this could be quite bad for their financials. Time to option their stock!

Don't say that; I own GW stock.

You have an interesting point there. Relative to Chapterhouse, Games Workshop is a mammoth of a company, but in the larger world they're not all that huge (really because nothing in gaming is).

I wonder what a good outcome for them is?