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.

agnosto wrote: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.

Well, they're not filing these suits about money. The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.

These aren't about money, they're about turf. And if you assume most sellers will roll over...

agnosto wrote: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.

Note that TTAB practice is mostly trademark registration and/or opposition. Heavy emphasis on potential customer confusion issues, which is certainly relevant to the current case.

Polonius wrote:
Well, they're not filing these suits about money. The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.

These aren't about money, they're about turf. And if you assume most sellers will roll over...

I completely understand your point. I know GW must defend their IP, as they see it, and that's what this suit is all about. I don't know CH's financials but I can't imagine that they are costing GW all that much in lost revenue, if any at all.

I simply thought to myself what the result would be if GW lost or if they won and followed my reasoning down that avenue. By no means should my random mumbling be construed as anything other than just a personal opinion based upon what little I know or guess about the doings of companies and the intricacies of IP law.

It's very interesting.

@Janthkin,
I must have missed that when I skimmed it earlier. I suppose they chose a well qualified associate to defend CH; interesting considering the pro-bono nature of the representation.

Polonius wrote:The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.

GW can recover actual damages + any profits by the infringer. Also, if they had registered within the proper period of time, they would be able to get statutory damages, and possibly attorneys fees.

Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.

Frazzled wrote:Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.

Of course, that makes the most sense. But my point was that GW doesn't have to show lost profits, just that CH profitted.

odinsgrandson wrote:

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?

A good outcome would have been Chapter House folding straight away, like the fan run web sites.

One thing I don't understand. Why don't bitz companies just make their conversion kits for their units only? Wouldn't that help diversity anyway? Or are they just trying to cash in on GW's Universe?

biccat wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Can't squeeze blood from a turnep though Biccat. CH could just file and move on. I would.

Of course, that makes the most sense. But my point was that GW doesn't have to show lost profits, just that CH profitted.

Yeah, I know that. I also know that GW ain't gonna collect that judgment.

Mr Hyena wrote:One thing I don't understand. Why don't bitz companies just make their conversion kits for their units only? Wouldn't that help diversity anyway? Or are they just trying to cash in on GW's Universe?

Many of these bitz companies provide a great service to the miniature consumer by providing parts for models that GW doesn't bother putting into their kits. There are many hobbyists like myself who do not want to bother with sculpting putty or conversions beyond simple head/arm/weapon swaps. Bitz companies allow hobbyists like myself to still be able to put minis on the table that GW doesn't bother producing. Need boneswords on those warriors? Go to the bitz store. Need a decent farseer jetbike conversion without hacking a metal farseer in half? Go to a bitz store. Until GW provides miniatures or accessories for every codex entry, then hobbyists need a bitz store.

I don't see how GW is being hurt in here. In most cases people are still buying GW figures and then converting them with parts from bitz stores.

I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.

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!

That is the only stock I own that is actually in the black...

Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.

Can I second it?

Its still proof that a third party market is a sign of a healthy business line. I couldn't agree with augustus5 more.

Mr Hyena wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Mr Hyena wrote:But GW losing means theres absolutely no way for them to protect even the slightest bit of their I.P; which is bad for us anyway. (especially those who don't know much about wargaming; like being new to it; and buy shoddy gear) .

This is simply not true. I'm not even sure what would make you think that.

But thats the thing; what really will stop bit companies from making and labelling that their bits are designed for warhammer 40k if this wins? If this happens; GW will lose alot of money; and armies will recieve less support; maybe with some even being squatted.

Nobody wants that to happen.

I just don't want GW to win because I hate them as a company...simple really, I don't give a damn about IP violations, I just wanna see GW fail...again.

But other companies aren't any better.

This is a flame war waiting to happen. your quote of "other companies aren't any better" is purely opinionated and, like the OT gw claim, is far to broad to be reasonably supported. Furthermore, speaking as someone who started the game new to it (like, oh, the rest of us) the first place I got my things was a GW store. So from a simple logistical stand point, the only reason someone would buy shoddy gear is if they were completely unaware of how warhammer worked (which is typical of most new comers) but also had a reason NOT to go to the GW store or other FLGS, such as, say, high prices. thus it makes it more likely that GW will be forced to reconsider it's marketing strategies if it loses. As it stands it holds a monopoly on the warhammer industry (logically since it is their IP in name) however, like the aftermarket body kits, an introduction of alternative kit bashers would weaken the GW monopoly holdings, though most likely only on those who search for deals. Thus GW would most likely be forced to lower prices (this is an economics assumption now, so yes it is Off Topic and I apologize) given that supply has increased,but would still gain income from new comers and hard core "GW'ers" who support the company and buy "only GW". After all, drawing once again on the ford aftermarket example, those kits are sold (as they must have a demand or they wouldn't be...) yet somehow Ford still sells cars (ignoring the economic downturn, yes they still sold cars this year and last).

Back on topic, it is quite fascinating to see how those of you who have passed the bar (at least I hope those of you lambasting the ignorant have passed the bar...) theorize this will play out. On an intillectual note as to the sliding scale mentioned earlier, how can it be that a company not ford can manufacture ford's logo on their aftermarket parts? not to mention using the exact names for aftermarket body kits...I would think tthat would fall under the "optimus prime" side of the scale wouldn't it?

dbsamurai wrote:....On an intillectual note as to the sliding scale mentioned earlier, how can it be that a company not ford can manufacture ford's logo on their aftermarket parts? not to mention using the exact names for aftermarket body kits...I would think tthat would fall under the "optimus prime" side of the scale wouldn't it?

A lot of after market stuff is licensed.

I assume that standard manufacturer caveats regarding warranties, liability and suitability come into place even when using Licensed products.

Ford et all would probably pursue any major violators of their branding if a true hazard were caused or their name was being truly misappropriated and misused. Though they have pursued Ferrari over the use of the F150 designation.

Also you make can make conversions of autos to make them look like another manufacturers, Celicas and other bits into Lancia Deltas etc. AFAIK This isn't illegal or considered suspect, road worthiness is determined by other parameters such as MOT passes etc.

Passing such a vehicle off as something different would be fraudulent.

Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.

Normally I would second, but barring a few individuals there is actually some interesting info in here.

Frazzled wrote:Do we know who's representing GW?

I posted the answer on the first page:

Kroothawk wrote:Some interesting tidbits:
The original filing representative of GW stepped down and left the law firm, that firm will continue to represent GW though:

MOTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF HEIDI L. BELONGIA AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED
I, Heidi L. Belongia, hereby move this Court to withdraw my appearance as counsel for
Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited on the basis that I will no longer be associated with the law firm of Foley & Lardner LLP. Aside from my withdrawal, Foley & Lardner LLP will continue to represent Games Workshop in this matter.

http://www.foley.com/services/service_detail.aspx?deptid=32

CHS is represented by Winston & Strawn http://winstonandstrawn.com/ and attorney Jennifer A. Golinveaux http://winstonandstrawn.com/index.cfm?contentID=24&itemID=13554

Summary: Both sides send attorneys specialized in IP issues.

The judge has his own Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_F._Kennelly

BTW nice tidbit posted by weeble1000 over at Warseer on Star Wars copyright:

This is from a recent article that I pulled up with a quick google search. It is in British court, but it is interesting nonetheless. It is dated March 7th, 2011.

"BRITAIN’S most senior judges yesterday considered a question which has perhaps only ever troubled die-hard Star Wars fans.
Namely, whether or not the Imperial stormtrooper helmet is a work of art.
Darth Vader’s foot soldiers – from the 1977 film – are instantly recognisable thanks to their white plastic armour and faceless helmets.
And yesterday the legal dispute over the right of British designer Andrew Ainsworth – who made the original props – to sell replicas from his shop in West London reached the Supreme Court.

Star Wars creator George Lucas claims Mr Ainsworth is breaching copyright. He is appealing a High Court decision which allowed Mr Ainsworth to sell copies of the costume for £1,800.
Previous court hearings have determined that the stormtrooper costumes are functional rather than artistic works – the position adopted by Mr Ainsworth’s legal team."

Apparently, the lower courts of Britain have already ruled that the stormtrooper costume is functional and therefore not protectable by a copyright.

Must be the time of year or something...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/24/marvel-and-dc-team-up-against-league-of-sarcastic-lawyers/

reds8n wrote:Must be the time of year or something...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/24/marvel-and-dc-team-up-against-league-of-sarcastic-lawyers/

reds8n wrote:Must be the time of year or something...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/24/marvel-and-dc-team-up-against-league-of-sarcastic-lawyers/

Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.

Brilliant. Hope Cooperdog gets em by the scr....
erm ...scruff of the neck!

Polonius wrote:

reds8n wrote:Must be the time of year or something...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/24/marvel-and-dc-team-up-against-league-of-sarcastic-lawyers/

Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.

You should always be kind to lawyers, they likely know where the bodies are buried...

Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.

I've read all nine pages of this thread (correct at time of posting) without interruption today, most interesting thread I've read in months! We're a mention of the Southern States away from a Grisham drama in here - hold on though... If Grisham did write a novel about this, would we all be trying to get our share of the IP?

biccat wrote:

Polonius wrote:The upper limit of lost profist would be CHS's total sales, but keep in mind that you'd then need to translate that to profits lost, meaning that even if CHS has sales of $100k/year (an arbitrary number), given GW's margins that's really only lost profit of maybe 10-20 grand.

GW can recover actual damages + any profits by the infringer. Also, if they had registered within the proper period of time, they would be able to get statutory damages, and possibly attorneys fees.

Well whatever they are entitled to and what they can actually recover are quite different things. If the legal costs are colossal CH would just fold and GW would get a pittance.

Tantras wrote:Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.

I've read all nine pages of this thread (correct at time of posting) without interruption today, most interesting thread I've read in months! We're a mention of the Southern States away from a Grisham drama in here - hold on though... If Grisham did write a novel about this, would we all be trying to get our share of the IP?

I'm just surprised nobody's posted a Phoenix Wright macro yet.

I've read all nine pages of this thread...

Wow, we have some masochists on the forum. Either that or some people really do have a lot of frivolous time to waste pointlessly.

Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.

Excellent? That's open to debate. This is the first time I've been to this thread since posting in it early on about where this would lead, pointing out back then how spurious the usual "legal" and "business" arguments were and that it would inevitably be locked by MODs for stupidity and bad behavior like all threads on this topic eventually are. Today I jumped right to this last page out of morbid curiosity to see how bad it had gotten.

Lorek wrote:I'm going to make a motion to dismiss this thread.

I'll second that motion. And, let me add, "I told you so".

BrassScorpion wrote:

I've read all nine pages of this thread...

Wow, we have some masochists on the forum. Either that or some people really do have a lot of frivolous time to waste pointlessly.

Absolutely true, and the best thing is I'm getting paid to waste time frivolously!

Dear Mods: Please don't disrupt the topic by locking it needlessly, there is some excellent discussion going on.

BrassScorpion wrote:Excellent? That's open to debate. This is the first time I've been to this thread since posting in it early on about where this would lead, pointing out back then how spurious the usual "legal" and "business" arguments were and that it would inevitably be locked by MODs for stupidity and bad behavior like all threads on this topic eventually are. Today I jumped right to this last page out of morbid curiosity to see how bad it had gotten.

I just think for people that don't usually consider the legal implications of actions taken by GW (I.e. Me) it has been an interesting glimpse into the legal world. Sure there have been some knee-jerk reaction posts, but there have been a lot of mature questions asked and educated responses given. I don't see the benefit of locking the thread; surely if you're not interested you can just not look

I don't agree with what is being said on a thread that is not being abusive and argumentative or in anyway breaking the Dakka rules so let's shut it down please.

As you say old thing, what is "excellent" is open to debate and while you are entitled to think the thread tosh, others are equally entitled to find it enlightening.
We are not all High Court Barristers, so some of the posts have been informative.

If you wish to argue the merits or otherwise of allowing the thread to continue please do so elsewhere, rather than filibuster this thread into closure, which imho would be the equivalent of trolling.

Please can we get back to the matter in hand now.
And if the mods are to do anything I hope it will be to ensure this.

derek wrote:

Polonius wrote:

reds8n wrote:Must be the time of year or something...

http://www.bleedingcool.com/2011/03/24/marvel-and-dc-team-up-against-league-of-sarcastic-lawyers/

Suing lawyers isn't just poor strategy, it's also often bad business. You know what happens to snitches in mobster movies? Yeah, lawyers don't take kindly to being sued over crap.

You should always be kind to lawyers, they likely know where the bodies are buried...

Remember though, Marvel is owned by Disney, and DC by Time/Warner. Who do you think has the biggest, scariest lawyers?

There's a reason people say "Don't #$% with the Mouse!" Disney has always had teams of detectives and lawyers devoted to their copyrights, going way back over many decades.