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.

If this is legal anything is
Just because something looks like something else, doesn't mean its illegal

d-usa wrote:
But GW has not even declared that "combi weapons" were infringed. They have not given a clear list of what, if anything, was actually infringed.

Heck dice are made to be used in Warhammer 40K so are they infringing? Just because something can be used in a game system does not mean that it is infringing on said game system.

This year long case may actually become just a little clearer when GW actually releases a list of what it is they are accusing Chapterhouse of copying.

GW has claimed that the CHS combi weapon kit infringes its copyright(s).

it is in row 34 of the claim chart (you can find a copy at 83.2, Exhibit 3)

"Each of the weapons is a GW weapon by name and look.

A combi weapon is a weapon such as a rifle or pistol which can have a second weapon mounted to it.

A melta gun fires a wave of energy that heats up the target, causing it to explode.
A plasma gun fires a ball of super heated energy.

In the Warhammer 40,000 background, Space Marines can use combi-weapons. In the games's rules this is represented by the Space Marine player having the option of arming his models with one of three types of combi-weapon: melta, plasma, or flamer. The rules also provide the option of attaching a grenade launcher to the Space Marine's combi-weapon. See Warhammer 40,000 Space Marines, page 97."

Additionally, if anyone is interested in what claims Games Workshop has made in this case, you can find the Second Amended Complaint at 147.0. This was the second time that Games Workshop amended its complaint, and it was filed on January 19th of this year. The first amended complaint was submitted in response to Chapterhouse's initial motion to dismiss which called for, in the alternative to a dismissal, that Games Workshop amend its complaint. The First Amended Complaint is document 32.0. CHS argued that the First Amended Complaint contained minimal differences from the initial complaint. Games Workshop, as any plaintiff, had the right to amend its complaint by a certain date. Games Workshop made multiple requests to the court for an extension of the timeframe in which it could amend its complaint. The Court's final order on that issue set the January 19th date. This is significant because barring a ruling by the Court, the Second Amended Complaint represents Games Workshop's final opportunity to amend its claims.

So far as the combi-weapon thing, could CHS argue prior art? I guess I'm not clear, are GWS arguing they own the concept of a combi weapon, or specifically the name and implementation?

I'm confused, weeble - I thought GW & Paulson had sorted themselves out in December (IIRC) last year, yet 147.0 still includes Jon Paulson as a defendant.

I'm still amused at how they can get away with some of what they put in that document: "and it invests great sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands" - where?

Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

Ouze wrote:So far as the combi-weapon thing, could CHS argue prior art? I guess I'm not clear, are GWS arguing they own the concept of a combi weapon, or specifically the name and implementation?

Prior art? Does that mean finding an instance where it was already done before GW?

If so then just point to an assault rifle with an under slung grenade launcher. Main weapon with a single shot (unless the person is carrying extra ammunition, which apparently Space Marines cannot do) secondary weapon attached.

Or Aliens where Ripley duct tapes a flame thrower to her pulse rifle (which also has a grenade launcher).

Or Deckard's pistol from Blade Runner, which has a single shot, high calibre pistol on top of the standard one.

In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

Kroothawk wrote:In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

In this context, I'd think a lot more along the lines of something like an M-16 with an underslung M-203 grenade launcher. Plenty of "prior art", dating to at least the Vietnam War there...

Valete,

JohnS

"Prior art" is a term used in the context of a patent. "Art" refers to a type of useful skill; a method, process, etc. of creating something or achieving a useful result. In other words, "art" is generally used to describe a field. A person skilled in the type of technology a patent relates to is said to be "skilled in the art." "Prior art" refers to anything relating to a patent that existed prior to the conception date; the date on which the invention was first conceived of and reduced to practice. A patent must be new, useful, and not obvious in light of the "prior art." In other words, if it was already known, you can't have invented it.

You've used the wrong term, but I understand what you mean within the context of copyright law. In order to be protectable, a work must be an original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression. In other words, if it is itself a copy of something someone else did, or of something within the public domain, it isn't protectable. And to the the extent that an element of a work is such, it is not protectable.

Further, concepts and ideas are not protected by copyright. See section 102(b) of the US copyright code:

"§102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

If something is indispensable from the concept or idea of which a work is an expression, then that work is not protectable to that extent. For example, if you draw a picture of a car, you cannot argue that my car is a copy of yours merely by virtue of the fact that both works depict four wheels, an axel, etc. Those are indispensable from the concept that both works express. As another example, my Film Noir movie is not a copy of yours just because they both have a femme fatale character and a monologuing private dick. Your work is protectable to the extent that it is original, i.e. what makes your drawing of a car or your Film Noir unique, which could be a ton of things. Those elements would need to be unfairly appropriated by the accused work in order for it to be a copy.

It sounds complicated, but that's only because the law allows for a copy to not be an exact, 100% reproduction. Even so, substantial similarity is interpreted to mean that any difference between the works are insubstantial; i.e. meaningless within the entire context of the works. That, however, can be very subjective as it ultimately wades into the realm of what makes art artistic; what makes a work meaningful.

Dysartes wrote:
Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

This just makes me giggle everytime I see it. So fething true.

How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Jurys aren't randomly picked. They randomly select a sample then carefully select jurors from that sample based on who can be unbiased regarding that particular case.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Yeah but would he be a GW hater or white knight?

mattyrm wrote: I reckon a jury would side with GW wouldn't they?

The case seems pretty simple spelled out like that.

In 1987 a company made a game, said game is played by millions of people, then in 200X CHS started making bits for said game and making money selling them.

Pretty much boils down to that doesn't it? Regardless of our feelings on the matter, (GW is probably too aggressive regarding defending their IP) If CHS was making pieces for Monopoly then I think Hasbro would walk the case. Just because 40k isnt as well known, doesn't mean that CHS isn't making money thanks to someone else's invention.

Please read the previous 70 pages, in which your assumption about the legal situation has been refuted many times.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

They would probably have to tell the court any knowledge of the case they have picked up prior to the trial. You are supposed to only consider the evidence placed in front of you, a person being swayed by information outside the court process could invalidate the trial and land them in hot water if they don't admit it. Not going to happen though, the number of Dakka users in the US is quite small.

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

First hand info. Can't say more at the moment but hopefully I can give more info in the coming weeks.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Since one of the first questions that will be ask of a potential juror is going to be "Have you ever heard of Games Workshop?" and anyone who says "yes" will be dismissed be the GW attorneys, CHS attorneys as well, more than likely, I do not see it happening.

On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

CageUF wrote:

Knights-Abhorrent wrote:

CageUF wrote:As of a few weeks ago GW was still looking at a few major law firms here in the US to resume the IP infringement cases.

Source please?

First hand info. Can't say more at the moment but hopefully I can give more info in the coming weeks.

Odd. You don't usually see companies changing legal counsel in the middle of a case; it's not usually advisable considering the potential damage it might have on their representation, bringing in a whole new set of people who weren't involved from the outset. It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

Shepherd23 wrote:

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

Since one of the first questions that will be ask of a potential juror is going to be "Have you ever heard of Games Workshop?" and anyone who says "yes" will be dismissed be the GW attorneys, CHS attorneys as well, more than likely, I do not see it happening.

On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

It depends on the state. I believe voir dire (jury selection) in Illinois is evenly split between the attorneys and the judge; I don't know how many, or even if they're available, pre-selection challenges and peremptory strikes both sides will get; I believe Illinois law provides that parties will pass upon and accept the jury in panels of four, commencing with the state.

The point here being that just because someone is familiar with GW doesn't mean they'll be stricken out of hand versus, say, a person who hates large companies "picking on he little guy".

Sidstyler wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

No insult meant Sid. I know doctors, engineers, lawyers and even a priest who play with our little toys. I just would rather see an impartial jury selected and old lady retired school teachers and gruff steel worker types popped in my head as likely examples of those most likely not associated with this hobby.

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

GW Lawyer: Juror Number 7, do you have any feelings either way towards the world miniature gaming?
Juror #7: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR KHORNE!
GW Lawyer: We'll take him.

By that you mean they just got a new job right?

Kroothawk wrote:In the end, GW is not willing (for over a year) to meet the minimum requirements for filing a copyright suit, which includes providing proof that they own copyright. So if GW does not change their attitude (and maybe lawyer) and actually provide the info (which in most or all cases they can't for obvious reasons), then there is no case for a jury to decide upon.

Oh, and concerning combi weapons:

That's not a combi weapon, this is

Hello,
I would think a combi-weapon would be easier to define as some of the over-under shotguns 410 and .22 comes to mind. There was also a pistol (old) that was .45 above and .22 under. The more entertaining thought is more expensive models tend to be master-works with all kinds of extra grubbins on them.

Regards,
Carl

Dysartes wrote:I'm confused, weeble - I thought GW & Paulson had sorted themselves out in December (IIRC) last year, yet 147.0 still includes Jon Paulson as a defendant.

I'm still amused at how they can get away with some of what they put in that document: "and it invests great sums each year in marketing and promoting these brands" - where?

Though my favourite description is within point 58: "Chapterhouse’s use of the logos and symbols associated with Games Workshops WARHAMMER $40,000..."

If a settlement between certain plaintiffs and certain defendants is reached, those parties may file a partial discontinuance of action. Those parties are no longer involved in the original action, but to go and amend a statement of claim just because one party is no longer in the defendants is ridiculous. The action was still commenced by one plaintiff against a number of defendants. By removing the party from the style of cause, you essentially remove them from the record as if they were never sued. Since the action is commenced between parties, those parties remain on that action, even after all parties have settled. This makes it so that when you search for actions commenced against or by a party, you get all the actions they were a part of. The style of cause needs to be identical on each document, which is why even with a settlement between the plaintiff and one defendant, said defendant will continue to be referenced on the style of cause (let's say it's Her majesty the queen and John doe v. J. Smith. HMTQ will be seeking to recover costs for medical expenses incurred in treating me, while I will be seeking damages with respect to future cost of care. The action involved three parties, which is relevant to maintain on the record. There could be another file of HTMQ v J. Smith on criminal charges, as well as John Doe v J Smith on property damages... You're not filing things with the court just with regard to the action number, but the names have to match. It's a security measure to ensure that everything is being filed correctly and on the correct action) More importantly, if the matter proceeds to trial, documents relating to the settlement between the first two parties may be deemed relevant for some reason and require production at the trial.

As to GW getting new lawyers...

sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012; everything will need to be copied, shipped over, reviewed again, strategies re-done.... essentially it's starting from square one, but getting everything done on overtime, so none of this will be cheap. (lets say, legal fees may have been $20K this year already, but because of the change of lawyers, they have to go back and essentially fork our the $20k of legal fees they paid last year again this year to the new firm, bringing this years total to $40k.... hence why changing counsel is pricy)

Doesn't explain to me why even after the settlement, GW is allowed to claim in official documents the obviously false accusation that Paulson sculpted a Chapterhouse model. The judge allows GW to continuously make deliberately false accusations of an innocent citizen.

poda_t wrote:sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012; everything will need to be copied, shipped over, reviewed again, strategies re-done.... essentially it's starting from square one

Actually, if GW gets a lawyer who is able and willing to provide at least the minimum requirements for even filing a copyright suit, square one is a major step forward.

Shepherd23 wrote:

Sidstyler wrote:

Shepherd23 wrote:On a personal front, I would not want to see anyone associated with the gaming community on this jury. I want retired school teachers and factory workers on the jury. People who don't know or care about our little toys. This is really the only way to get an impartial verdict.

I'm a factory worker and I assure you I'm every bit as involved in the gaming community as you are.

agnosto wrote:It wouldn't surprise me though with the way GW's been bungling this case from the start.

Well, you know, when you've hit rock bottom you have nowhere to go but up, right?

No insult meant Sid. I know doctors, engineers, lawyers and even a priest who play with our little toys. I just would rather see an impartial jury selected and old lady retired school teachers and gruff steel worker types popped in my head as likely examples of those most likely not associated with this hobby.

Hey I am a gruff Ironworker and I would hand GW their balls on a platter, bias why no your honour not me. =o]


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Emerett wrote:How amazing would it be if a dakka contributor was randomly picked for the jury.

Who cares if it's illegal, he'd have to share what's going on with us

GW Lawyer: Juror Number 7, do you have any feelings either way towards the world miniature gaming?
Juror #7: BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR KHORNE!
GW Lawyer: We'll take him.

LMFAOOOO!!!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

poda_t wrote:..

sigh.... say hello to the price increase of 2012;

I am positive the new legal team will have nothing to do with the GW 2012 annual price adjustment. It was on its way anyways. Might sting a little more.

Last entry on http://archive.recapthelaw.org/ilnd/250791/ is 01/20/2012 I know there has had to be more done after this, any one know where I can find it or can sum up what I am missing?

I don't know what is up with recap. There have been more docket entries since then, and I believe recap should show them even if no one has uploaded the actual document.

With the plugin running, PACER shows that documents all the way through 190 are available for free through recap. Recap also says that the docket was cached on 3/18/2012. The cached docket is almost up to date (the most recent entry was posted on the 23rd). There must be some issue with the recap website. It has that bit that says "documents in this range may be missing." I do not know why that is.

It seems like something you could contact recap about.

Recap is missing the CHS answer to the Second Amended Complaint and a bunch of motion practice regarding discovery disputes. These motions have all been ruled on. I believe I summarized the content of those motions, or some of them, a little higher up in the thread.

The only recent activity has been the withdrawal of a couple of attorneys. Scott Kaspar withdrew as counsel for Games Workshop, and was replaced by Jason Keener, a senior associate in the Foley and Lardner Chicago office with a specialty in intellectual property. Shane Witnov was withdrawn as counsel for Chapterhouse Studios.

This is not unusual. All of the withdrawals thus far in the case have been associates. They likely switched jobs/firms for reasons entirely unrelated to the case. The reason that I stress this point is so that you do not jump to the conclusion that someone has been fired, or otherwise removed as counsel due to poor performance in the lawsuit. For the most part, this is just business as usual.

Shane Witnov's profile page on Winston & Strawn's website no longer exists. I'm guessing he now works for a different firm.