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.

Gibbsey wrote:

Polonius wrote:Interestingly enough, apologists are generally people that use reason to defend a point of view in an argument, usually one that is heavily criticized or not often taken. It's a pretty accurate descriptor of a person that holds a minority view point but energetically defends it in the face of criticism.

Have you seen him consistently take sides in other threads, because in this thread he has a valid point and that is Chapter house has breached GW IP.

arguing against IP infringement does not make you an apologist

Sigh. It's a minority view point, or at least a solidily controversial one. Particualrly since the question of if CH violated IP is the topic of ensuing litigation. Nobody knows right now who did what. The point is, defending a view point, in the face of hostility, is pretty solid apologist behavior.

I mean, we all do it. I'm a shameless apologist for our current legal systme, which while it has massive flaws works amazingly well. I'll also argue to the end that the Refreshments were one of most underrrated bands of the mid-90's.

To answer your question though, yes, Mr. Kanulwen has a reputation for leaping to the defense of GW. Often againt pretty ham-fisted and incorrect ire, mind you, but he does often post in support of GW decisions or policies.

Gibbsey, you're missing the context that Kanluwen is perceived to universally defend GW regardless of the topic.

Mannahnin wrote:Gibbsey, you're missing the context that Kanluwen is perceived to universally defend GW regardless of the topic.

"Have you seen him consistently take sides in other threads"

I meant to put a ? after that


Can you guys at least see how chapter house may have breached IP law, also cars are a bad analogy, no car company i am aware of has any right to tires as a product.

And indeed, making tyres is one thing. Sticking say, Michelin or Firestone on them, when you are not those companies or the holders of said trademarks, is a different matter surely?

Polonius wrote:The point is, defending a view point, in the face of hostility, is pretty solid apologist behavior

Damn you martin luther king you apologist

I mean you cant really just call someone an apologist for an opposing view point


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:And indeed, making tyres is one thing. Sticking say, Michelin or Firestone on them, when you are not those companies or the holders of said trademarks, is a different matter surely?

And also making Michelin and Firestone patches for people to put on their tires would also be a problem

Somebody has to do this... the obligatory Dictionary.com lookup:

apologist (əˈpɒlədʒɪst)

— n
a person who offers a defence by argument

One would assume.

But as said earlier, I'm not in the least bit legally minded, so am asking questions, rather than making statements.

As good as their products were; it was quite audacious to be so blatant with their product names and descriptions... there were no illusions about what they were doing

HungryTaz wrote:Somebody has to do this... the obligatory Dictionary.com lookup:

apologist (əˈpɒlədʒɪst)

— n
a person who offers a defence by argument

Yeah, but in this sense apologist is used as someone who defends a position or company no matter what, even if the view they have is incorrect (not going to bother to elaborate on incorrect you know what i mean )


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Henners91 wrote:As good as their products were; it was quite audacious to be so blatant with their product names and descriptions... there were no illusions about what they were doing

Yeah, you cant just call it an outright "Mycetic Spore" and expect that to get by. (Damn that model looks weird...)

How do you know? I mean, we're not calling him a fan boy or anything. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a consistent position and adovacating it generally.

It's only a problem if you want people to actually listen. In which case, what you're called isn't important, it's if you actually have a nuanced view.

I myself have stated that GW's case has some merit. It's not clear case either way, simply because this is a different fact pattern than any other case, and there are some interesting legal angles to discuss.

Tires were a bad analogy, to the extent that bringing them up is borderline strawman behavior. Instead, I'd focus on comparing CH kits to other third party after-market products.

Yeah, you cant just call it an outright "Mycetic Spore" and expect that to get by.

Aye. "Alien Drop Pod" would have been a little more under radar. Using "Tervigon" was also something I was worried about. I was hoping to visually see on of these "Monstrous Alien Birthing Conversion Kits" before buying one.

I certainly would never use a company's trademarked names or product names in my products. Although one must wonder if "Ultramarine Blue Colored Space Soldier" would cause a problem?

Might not get the chance now.

Mr Polonius Sir!

I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

Polonius wrote:How do you know? I mean, we're not calling him a fan boy or anything. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a consistent position and adovacating it generally.

Well, you're not Most of the time, people sling it around as some kind of attempt to discredit my argument or make it seem like I have some vested interest in GW triumphing over its opponents.

I myself have stated that GW's case has some merit. It's not clear case either way, simply because this is a different fact pattern than any other case, and there are some interesting legal angles to discuss.

IP law is something I really should read up on. Is it more or less boring than criminal and civil law?

Tires were a bad analogy, to the extent that bringing them up is borderline strawman behavior. Instead, I'd focus on comparing CH kits to other third party after-market products.

Yeah. Like I said, I never understand why people bring in "well it's like tires!" for this discussion.

Mr Mystery wrote:Mr Polonius Sir!

I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

The action is fine. I've actually spoken that, if nothing else, the tone and scope of the complaint is standard procedure. I'm not saying GW shouldn't have filed their action. I'm not an expert on IP, but yes, generally, if you do not defend your property rights against incursion you can eventually lose exclusive use. thats true of all property, not just IP. It's like a genericized trademark (xerox, kleenex, etc)

What I'm speaking to is the this assumptoin, by either side, that IP was/wasn't breached. Nobody knows! This is actually pretty fresh legal territory, which is one reason it could be so expensive to litigate.

Never forget that over 90% of all civil cases end by settlement, not by trial.

Mr Mystery wrote:Mr Polonius Sir!

I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

Pretty much, chapter house was just too blatent with what they were doing

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:How do you know? I mean, we're not calling him a fan boy or anything. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a consistent position and adovacating it generally.

Well, you're not Most of the time, people sling it around as some kind of attempt to discredit my argument or make it seem like I have some vested interest in GW triumphing over its opponents.

Well, would you argue with the assertion that most of your posts in any sort of discussion on GW policies are supportive if not actively defensive? I mean, I may miss seeing you making negative comments about GW in threads, so I can't speak about your overall positng history, but I've seen you pretty consistently speaking in favor of GW practices and policies.

Gibbsey wrote:

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The point is that Ford does not have a patent etc on tires, so other people can manufacture them.

GW does have a patent on their Designes, you cant call something a Tervigon or a Landraider and sell it. Those are pattented names, by all means sell a "large monsterous creature" or a "WW1 style tank" as long as you arnt ripping off the design. Also slapping a load of Tau iconography all over a model will get you in trouble if you are selling it on a large scale.

No. Just....no.

Patent has a very specific legal meaning, which is completely inapplicable here. You don't patent names; you trademark them. Trademarks carry certain rights, along with certain responsibilities. You also don't patent sculptures or images; those are protected by copyright, which also carries certain specific rights.

Polonius wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:Mr Polonius Sir!

I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

The action is fine. I've actually spoken that, if nothing else, the tone and scope of the complaint is standard procedure. I'm not saying GW shouldn't have filed their action. I'm not an expert on IP, but yes, generally, if you do not defend your property rights against incursion you can eventually lose exclusive use. thats true of all property, not just IP. It's like a genericized trademark (xerox, kleenex, etc)

What I'm speaking to is the this assumptoin, by either side, that IP was/wasn't breached. Nobody knows! This is actually pretty fresh legal territory, which is one reason it could be so expensive to litigate.

Never forget that over 90% of all civil cases end by settlement, not by trial.

Groovy. Cheers for the answer.

And now I'm afraid another question.

If you were representing the plaintiff (GW..not sure on the US terminology!) would you push for settlement, or to try and litigate to a definitive answer? It's just I can see a definite upswing to GW pushing all the way, regardless of cost as it gives them a far stronger position in the future?

Janthkin wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Polonius wrote:Actually, as Janthkin pointed out, arguing by analogy is what lawyers do when there isn't caselaw on point.

The point is that Ford does not have a patent etc on tires, so other people can manufacture them.

GW does have a patent on their Designes, you cant call something a Tervigon or a Landraider and sell it. Those are pattented names, by all means sell a "large monsterous creature" or a "WW1 style tank" as long as you arnt ripping off the design. Also slapping a load of Tau iconography all over a model will get you in trouble if you are selling it on a large scale.

No. Just....no.

Patent has a very specific legal meaning, which is completely inapplicable here. You don't patent names; you trademark them. Trademarks carry certain rights, along with certain responsibilities. You also don't patent sculptures or images; those are protected by copyright, which also carries certain specific rights.

um? Well you get my meaning, patents are for inventions etc copyright is for IP.

Gibbsey wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

Pretty much, chapter house was just too blatent with what they were doing

Maybe. If the win the case, then they weren't too blatant. If they lose the case, it might be due to other reasons as well.

I'm not convinced that GW's goal is to win the case. They don't have to win a legal challenge, when they can accomplish the same result (shutting down a third party vendor) by legal attrition. Just drag it out, get them to shut down production, even if you drop the case in 3 years, it's probably too late for the little guy.

I think it's a pretty important case for the hobby. CH wins, and it really opens the door for other vendors. Does someone get bold enough to create 'futurstic genetically engineered warrior in heavy armor', etc.? Even if no one takes it that far, if it emboldens more people to create and sell items like shoulder pads, heads, backpacks, vehicle upgrades, etc. - it's a good thing for the hobby.

Gibbsey wrote: um? Well you get my meaning, patents are for inventions etc copyright is for IP.

First: Patents are IP (as are trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, sorta).

Second: it's much less a question of tires (largely functional, and so mostly unprotected by copyright), and more a question of, say, replacement grills (largely ornamental, especially the shape/outline, and so potentially protected by copyright). That's a question both courts and Congress have addressed over the years, as opposed to replacement parts for our toy soldiers. Given the absence of any precedent exactly on-point, analogies are both useful and inevitable in legal arguments.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm curious as to how you can say that with a straight face, Chaos.

The railguns are almost carbon copies of the ones on Broadsides/Hammerheads, the main body looks like a chopped in half Devilfish, and the overall "look" of it matches the artwork that we have of Tau Sept Worlds and the scenery that we constantly see whenever they play games depicting Tau Septs "under siege".

I think you need to get your vision checked, as none of that is true. The rail weapons looks totally different from any of the Tau railweapons (as a tau player for the past 7-8 years, looking at them right now, I know this for a fact), aside from the fact that they feature two rails each and a perpendicular support beam at some point on their length :SHOCK: Thats not enough to claim IP infringement, otherwise Bandai could sue the From Software because Armoured Core's look like Gundams (they both feature large humanoid vehicles with two humanoid legs and two humanoid arms and a humanoid head :SHOCK

The main body looks absolutely nothing like a chopped in half Devilfish, where this thought comes from I do not know, as it shares no defining shape, feature, or even lines similar to any Tau model that GW produces. Nor does the overall look match the artwork of any Tau artwork or scenery, unless you're referring to the color scheme on the display piece which shares a similar color palette to said scenery :SHOCK:



By your reasoning, Honda should sue Volkswagen because the VW Jetta looks so similar to the Honda Civic or Honda should sue Hyundai because they both use stylized H's, okay these aren't the best examples in the world, but it was all I could think of with all the automtive industry comparisons being thrown about.

I'm glad to see that this has quickly descended into people that dont' know anything about IP law talking, while ignroing the one poster that does; while the rest of us watch a poster that relentlessly argues on behalf of GW try to explain why he's not an apologist.

Who might that be? I'd like to read what he/she has to say.

Ah, nevermind its you, I will rebrowse this thread later to see what you have posted previously.

I took a long look at the images of the "Tau" walker sculpt.
I don't see anything difinitively "Tau" on it. Nothing concrete.

I mean, it has the same rounded anime shape that Tau utilize, but that's hardly original for Tau. It's more mecha.
I looked hard for Tau symbols. I don't see any of them sculpted on the walker.
The "Rail guns" on it share only a similarity with the tau railguns in that they have the over/under, double barrel rectangle design. I doubt that's concrete enough to be infringing (again - not a lawyer, just speculating).

I look forward to this being resolved properly. I hope CH fights it to the end.

Eric

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:I've often been told (and indeed repeated myself) that IP is something a company has to actively defend. Is this actually the case? And if so, would that not make GW's legal action against Chapterhouse something of a necessity from their camp?

Pretty much, chapter house was just too blatent with what they were doing

Maybe. If the win the case, then they weren't too blatant. If they lose the case, it might be due to other reasons as well.

I'm not convinced that GW's goal is to win the case. They don't have to win a legal challenge, when they can accomplish the same result (shutting down a third party vendor) by legal attrition. Just drag it out, get them to shut down production, even if you drop the case in 3 years, it's probably too late for the little guy.

I think it's a pretty important case for the hobby. CH wins, and it really opens the door for other vendors. Does someone get bold enough to create 'futurstic genetically engineered warrior in heavy armor', etc.? Even if no one takes it that far, if it emboldens more people to create and sell items like shoulder pads, heads, backpacks, vehicle upgrades, etc. - it's a good thing for the hobby.

In my opinion, a win for CH would be a win for greedy little chancers. I know it might not be the popular opinion, but they have been largely parasitic in their designs, using established iconography. Whether GW have got round to sculpting/releasing that particular item is immaterial. CH and others deliberately piggyback on their hard work, and that's not something I enjoy seeing.

Polonius wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:How do you know? I mean, we're not calling him a fan boy or anything. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a consistent position and adovacating it generally.

Well, you're not Most of the time, people sling it around as some kind of attempt to discredit my argument or make it seem like I have some vested interest in GW triumphing over its opponents.

Well, would you argue with the assertion that most of your posts in any sort of discussion on GW policies are supportive if not actively defensive? I mean, I may miss seeing you making negative comments about GW in threads, so I can't speak about your overall positng history, but I've seen you pretty consistently speaking in favor of GW practices and policies.

Most of my negative comments tend towards being aimed at models I dislike. Their practices/policies I'll usually say either "They likely have another motive behind it" or I'll point out improper ideas/absolutes being stated regarding GW policies(like the recent one regarding "Direct Only" models).

What established GW iconography does CH use?
That's a question, not a challenge to your statement.

Please understand, though, that I don't consider iron crosses, blood drops and Imperial Eagles to count, as GW simply lifted them from real-life sources.
What original iconography does CH use of GW's?

Eric

Gibbsey wrote:also cars are a bad analogy, no car company i am aware of has any right to tires as a product.

Cars are a good analogy, although tyres are a terrible example. However, things like exhausts, air filters, oil filters, cam belts, cams, valves, valve springs, gaskets, pistons, conrods, flywheels, bearings, brake lines/pipes, calipers and discs, all manner of ugly bodykits, and a thousand other components can be obtained from aftermarket manufacturers. They usually have to meet an exacting specification in order to fit and work on a particular vehicle so they are advertised as being for it: e.g. Honda Civic 1.6 petrol 2005-2010 model. Pretty specific - if it wasn't you would end up buying a product that you have no possibility of using.

We've already discussed that other industries allow aftermarket products to be created for other companies' products, and I would argue that advertising something like, 'Shoulder Pads for GW Space Marines' is not only legal, but actually essential to ensure the consumer knows if that product is suitable for the purpose they intend for it.

Do any of the resident lawyers know if there are grounds for a countersuit, as GW is acting in an anti-competitive manner? Class action, anyone?

MagickalMemories wrote:What established GW iconography does CH use?
That's a question, not a challenge to your statement.

Please understand, though, that I don't consider iron crosses, blood drops and Imperial Eagles to count, as GW simply lifted them from real-life sources.
What original iconography does CH use of GW's?

Eric

Salamanders, Space Wolves for two. Both pretty blatant rip offs. Also as mentioned earlier, I'd imagine a big problem CH could face is that GW could prove the shoulder pads/rhino doors they sell are not only derivative, but include original GW parts reproduced (as in original was sculpted on an actual GW Rhino door, and not a piece of plasticard cut to the same shape etc)

MagickalMemories wrote:What established GW iconography does CH use?
That's a question, not a challenge to your statement.

Please understand, though, that I don't consider iron crosses, blood drops and Imperial Eagles to count, as GW simply lifted them from real-life sources.
What original iconography does CH use of GW's?
Eric

Well, we've got the Iron Hands insignia, Celestial Lions, the Dark Angels/Deathwatch "monastaic" shoulderpads(which are only shown in art, off the top of my head, in the artwork for Azrael), the Imperial/Crimson Fists, Fleshtearers, Salamanders/"Dragons", Exorcists, and Howling Griffons off the top of my head.

And whether or not "GW simply lifted them from real-life sources" does not matter; but context does. An Iron Cross with a skull on it for a shoulderpad for a Space Marine isn't likely intended to be used on Wehrmacht figures.

Kanluwen wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, would you argue with the assertion that most of your posts in any sort of discussion on GW policies are supportive if not actively defensive? I mean, I may miss seeing you making negative comments about GW in threads, so I can't speak about your overall positng history, but I've seen you pretty consistently speaking in favor of GW practices and policies.

Most of my negative comments tend towards being aimed at models I dislike. Their practices/policies I'll usually say either "They likely have another motive behind it" or I'll point out improper ideas/absolutes being stated regarding GW policies(like the recent one regarding "Direct Only" models).

My point is, when you never appear to find fault with their policies, or even acknowledge the possiblity of fault, it's easy to paint you as presenting an un-nuanced opinion. Likewise, when you point out the flaws in every ridiculous anti-GW statement, you appear very committed the idea of "defending" GW. You don't need to swing at every pitch. People say stupid stuff, and most people that read it will know that it's stupid. You don't need to tangle with every guy with an ax to grind. When you do, you look like a guy that either really loves to argue, or somebody that's somehow invested in arguing a certain view.

It's like when atheists make some sort of snarky comment everytime religion is brought up: you stop thinking about their view point and just wondering what makes them keep drinking from that well? It's the same thing with the way you post: I sometimes wonder why you would go through such trouble if you weren't looking to either scrap constantly or somehow feel committed to defending GW.