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.

 derek wrote:


In a small defense of GW, they did try, they just failed to do it in a way that was consumer friendly. Not that being consumer friendly is really in their wheelhouse these days.

They put out a weapon pack that had one of each Combi-weapon (with a silly look to the Combi-Flamer and Combi-plasma), plus a heavy bolter, heavy flamer, and pair of lightning claws. Put a $13.50 GW.com exclusive price on it and called it a day.

Can we get a link to this? Would like to see their silliness

 doc1234 wrote:

 derek wrote:


In a small defense of GW, they did try, they just failed to do it in a way that was consumer friendly. Not that being consumer friendly is really in their wheelhouse these days.

They put out a weapon pack that had one of each Combi-weapon (with a silly look to the Combi-Flamer and Combi-plasma), plus a heavy bolter, heavy flamer, and pair of lightning claws. Put a $13.50 GW.com exclusive price on it and called it a day.

Can we get a link to this? Would like to see their silliness

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a
That's the American page btw.
On topic, according to the other thread, we should have the Final Verdict by the end of the week. Wondering if anything will change between the jury's verdict and the final.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 doc1234 wrote:

 derek wrote:


In a small defense of GW, they did try, they just failed to do it in a way that was consumer friendly. Not that being consumer friendly is really in their wheelhouse these days.

They put out a weapon pack that had one of each Combi-weapon (with a silly look to the Combi-Flamer and Combi-plasma), plus a heavy bolter, heavy flamer, and pair of lightning claws. Put a $13.50 GW.com exclusive price on it and called it a day.

Can we get a link to this? Would like to see their silliness

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?catId=cat440277a&prodId=prod1710018a
That's the American page btw.
On topic, according to the other thread, we should have the Final Verdict by the end of the week. Wondering if anything will change between the jury's verdict and the final.

Ah yes, the pack with the infamous bent lightning claws...

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do we have a link to a list of the specific charges and what the individual decisions were yet? Or are we still just shooting the breeze?

So that's a no, then?

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do we have a link to a list of the specific charges and what the individual decisions were yet? Or are we still just shooting the breeze?

So that's a no, then?

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2012/11/breaking-legalwatch-summary-judgement.html

Nothing very specific, unless it's included in the file on the link above.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
Do we have a link to a list of the specific charges and what the individual decisions were yet? Or are we still just shooting the breeze?

So that's a no, then?

There is no final judgment. Judge and jury will meet again to clarify details of this complex matter, see other lawsuit thread for details.

Verdict returned in open court. A judgment will not be entered at this time pending further discussions regarding the form of the judgment given the complexity of the verdict form. The deadline for filing motions pursuant to Rules 50 and 59 relating to the jury's verdict is 7/15/2013. A status hearing is set for 6/20/2013 at 9:30 a.m. to address that point as well as what further proceedings will be required regarding plaintiff's request for an injunction.
(...)
Status hearing set for 6/20/2013 at 9:30 AM.
(...)
Status hearing held and continued to 7/15/2013 at 9:30 a.m. Joint Status Report regarding Injunctive Relief is to be filed by 6/26/2013. Draft judgment to be submitted by 6/26/13. Hearing regarding the judgment set for 6/27/2013 at 09:30 AM.

There was a discussion on Warseer about Nick Villacci's post on BOLS refuting allegations that he was unwilling to reach a settlement with GW.

I responded to comments made in that discussion, and I thought that I would re-post that response here as it is an interesting topic.

Inquisitor Kallus;6830558 wrote:From BOLS:

'To roughly quote the head GW rep I talked to - "this isnt about logical decisions, its about principal, so dont expect a logical settlement offer based on trial and legal cost because we dont care about the cost". I asked them for a fair offer, one that would let me start a new business unrelated to wargaming. This would have let GW have what they wanted as well as letting me have a way to support my family (which is really what CHS is all about, paying the bills and making sure my kid has a home and clothes on her back), and it would have been equal or less then what they had to have spent on the trial and legal cost. They refused numerous times to meet me in any mid point.'




Now thats not to say earning money to support his family is in any way a bad thing but his point about an offer (money wise) to start a business unrelated to wargaming seems to suggest hes in it for the money more than the wargaming community.

All we know is that this case went to trial because the parties could not work it out beforehand. As I posted before, Judge Gilbert's comments in Sept 2011 are very relevant here:

THE COURT: And so let's say for the sake of argument
and only for the sake of argument and not as any finding or
anything else that for at least some of your items you're
going to be able to show they're substantially similar and
you're going to be able to put together whatever
circumstantial or even direct evidence in terms of the types
of things you're asking for from the defendant of copying,
okay? And for others it's going to be a little bit dicier.
You're not going to be able to show that they're that similar
and you're not going to be able to -- and maybe the defendant
is going to be able to articulate from whatever diaries he has
or whatever that he came up with the Shakespeare sonnet pretty
much on his own and it's going to be a bit of a reach.
But let say you're going to win on some of this stuff
after you go through all your discovery. What then? If Games
Workshop Limited's goal is to put Chapterhouse Studios out of
business, a death knell, cease and desist, go away, die, and
pay us whatever you can of our attorneys' fees, then you're
right, there is no basis to sit down and settle this case.
However, if you would like to work out some agreement
with Chapterhouse Studios, and I haven't yet heard whether
Chapterhouse is willing to do that, short of "We'll go away
roll up and die," but that allows both of you to go on and
attempt to continue to operate in the areas, the space that
you're operating in in some way without one or the other
having to give up, in the world I live that's called a
settlement, right?

Gilbert is saying that if GW wanted CHS out of business, period, then there was no settlement possibility. And from this same document you can find GW counsel saying that a license is a "non starter." So we know that GW was not willing to offer a license, at least not at that point, and we know that Gilbert's view of the world was that if GW wanted CHS out of business, then there could be no settlement. Now, Gilbert said that he did not know if CHS was willing to settle, but he correctly predicted that GW would lose on some claims and CHS would remain in business if the case went all the way through without settlement.

For at least one party, this case was about more than money. If Nick is lying about offering to settle with GW, then he is a liar who fought his butt off for years to defend the principle that an accessory company can in fact make accessories for Games Workshop products and can in fact use Games Workshop's trademarks to market those products. If Nick is telling the truth, and he offered to settle for trial cost, then that wasn't good enough for GW and Nick had no option but to "go away roll up and die," or fight to defend his livelihood because GW gave him no other option.

Which is it? I don't really care. Either way the result proves exactly what Gilbert told GW would happen: CHS has a profitable, legitimate business and will remain in business after this whole shebang is over and GW will prove to the world that certain of its IP claims are BS.

Nick Villacci stood up to GW. Either he stood up for the community and industry at large, or he stood up against a bully who ignored the realities of the law, who ignored the legitimate nature of Nick's business, and forced him into a fight or die situation.

Either way, kudos to Nick Villacci. Congratulations to Nick Villacci. If Nick took a stand for the industry, if Nick fought to prove that the many companies like CHS have the right to produce goods that Games Workshop believes are illegitimate and to market those goods in a way that Games Workshop believes is illegitimate, then everyone should be recognizing Nick's personal sacrifice for the industry at large.

If Nick was given no option but "a death knell, cease and desist, go away, die, and pay us whatever you can of our attorneys' fees" just because we are bigger than you, and even though the vast majority of our claims are complete and utter BS, then kudos to Nick Villacci. Congratulations to Nick Villacci for having the willpower to defend his livelihood, for having the perseverance to stand up to a bully through years of emotionally and financially draining litigation. Congratulations to Nick Villacci for proving that he does in fact have a legitimate business, and that companies like GW can't get away with putting someone out of business just because they have more money.

Why would it matter if he was "in it for the money"? I know precious few people who start businesses to do otherwise - even if there are more altruistic reasons as well.

That does not prevent him from also standing up for the community to a bully that is taking illegal actions.

Yeah - what! It's CHS that's been proved to do illegal things not GW it don't matter that CHS was cleared of 75% of claims they still stole GWs ip for 25% of the claims. So according to some on here and else where it would be ok to steal a quarter of anything if your standing up to someone be it a larger company or a supermarket who you dont agree with.

Did GW put in to many claims it seams so but they were in the end proved to have a case against CHS and as for nick some comments on here and else where you'd think he's next for sainthood the way he's bigged up just remember he stole someone elses IP (proven in court) regardless of how much.

Skullhammer wrote:
Yeah - what! It's CHS that's been proved to do illegal things not GW it don't matter that CHS was cleared of 75% of claims they still stole GWs ip for 25% of the claims. So according to some on here and else where it would be ok to steal a quarter of anything if your standing up to someone be it a larger company or a supermarket who you dont agree with.

Did GW put in to many claims it seams so but they were in the end proved to have a case against CHS and as for nick some comments on here and else where you'd think he's next for sainthood the way he's bigged up just remember he stole someone elses IP (proven in court) regardless of how much.

No they used GW IP under fair use laws (the case proved this), they lost on the full models of pre-existing GW models.

Skullhammer wrote:
Yeah - what! It's CHS that's been proved to do illegal things not GW it don't matter that CHS was cleared of 75% of claims they still stole GWs ip for 25% of the claims. So according to some on here and else where it would be ok to steal a quarter of anything if your standing up to someone be it a larger company or a supermarket who you dont agree with.

Did GW put in to many claims it seams so but they were in the end proved to have a case against CHS and as for nick some comments on here and else where you'd think he's next for sainthood the way he's bigged up just remember he stole someone elses IP (proven in court) regardless of how much.

Okay, I also posted this on Warseer, which directly addresses a substantively similar comment made by someone over there.

madden;6830162 wrote:Except it's GW who's the victim in this case (not on everything ) but on a good chunk of the claims so yes CHS were wrong, were stealing/infringing on GWs ip/items so as things stand CHS are the bad guys in this and are now trying to make a spin job to look better. Where as GW are keeping quiet and being dignified and not shouting from tge roof tops how they've been wronged etc etc.

Over 2.5 years of litigation, if you add everything up, CHS effectively prevailed on about 75% of the asserted claims. 75%. You can call GW the victim if you want to, but what about the impact of having to defend one's self from hundreds, literally hundreds of claims, of which you wound up prevailing on 75%? How many of those claims were at all reasonable to begin with? And don't forget CHS's JMOL motion. Read some of the quoted testimony. Who is the victim in a lawsuit in which the plaintiff is alleging likelihood of confusion, but states on the witness stand, years into litigation, that customers are not likely to be confused? It is actually wrong, and actionable, to bring claims that you have no good faith basis to believe are legitimate. If CHS were to sue GW for abuse of process, malicious litigation, or request costs and attorney'e fees on the claims CHS prevailed on, would you suddenly call CHS a victim? If CHS prevailed on any such claims, would you turn around and call CHS a victim?

Let's broaden the perspective a bit. GW sued CHS on December 21st, 2010, two days before Christmas Eve, alleging that every single product CHS sold infringed, that every use of GW's alleged marks by CHS was an infringement, that CHS's entire website was in fact an infringement, and told CHS that it had 20 days to cease all such activity. Knowing what we do now, that CHS prevailed on 75% of those allegations, who would have been the victim if CHS, which as Judge Gilbert said back in September 2011 has "a profitable business," did what GW demanded and simply ceased 'all such activity'? Were that to have happened, CHS would have stopped practicing a profitable, legitimate business based solely on the sheer number of allegations made by Games Workshop. Who would the victim have been? Would it have been Games Workshop, who demonstrated that it lost not a single, solitary sale of any product at all as a result of CHS? Or would it have been CHS, whose legitimate business would have been destroyed, who would have suffered quantifiable monetary harm?

Be careful who you go 'round calling a victim, because this was civil litigation, not criminal litigation. If you want to say that GW prevailed on X claims and CHS prevailed on Y claims, that's fine. If you want to say that CHS should not have done X, Y, and Z that was found to have been infringing, that's fine too. But you can't justify GW filing hundreds of claims by arguing that GW had a right to do so because this is civil litigation we are talking about here, and the potential harm caused by asserting those alleged rights is immaterial, and then go and call GW a "victim." If it was okay for GW to assert hundreds of claims and lose on 75% of them, then it was equally okay for CHS to sell and market hundreds of products of which 25% infringed on GW's exclusive rights.

CHS had as much of a good faith basis to believe that what it was doing was correct as GW had in believing that all of its claims were legitimate. There was no willful infringement here. There is no claim of malicious litigation or abuse of process. This was two companies adjudicating a dispute via a jury trial, costing me, you, and every other taxpayer a boatload of money, because they were unwilling or unable to come to a resolution outside of a courtroom. it isn't any more than that. It isn't any less than that, and if you go beyond the law, if you start venturing into declaring one party or the other a "victim," you are wading into seriously muddy waters in which GW is not clean by a long shot.

Edit: LOL, in grabbing my Warseer post I saw that the forum member "madden" posted the exact same thing that I quoted from Skullhammer above. Apparently madden and Skullhammer are the same person, and rather than replying to my response to his post on Warseer, he just posted substantively the same thing again, and then posted it over here on Dakka as well.

Well, madden/skullhammer, my above post in reply to your earlier Warseer post remains an appropriate response.

Except that second quote was a response was to hellebore on warseer who was saying that CHS was the victim in this case not to yours.

weeble1000 wrote:
Nick Villacci stood up to GW. Either he stood up for the community and industry at large, or he stood up against a bully who ignored the realities of the law, who ignored the legitimate nature of Nick's business, and forced him into a fight or die situation.

Either way, kudos to Nick Villacci. Congratulations to Nick Villacci. If Nick took a stand for the industry, if Nick fought to prove that the many companies like CHS have the right to produce goods that Games Workshop believes are illegitimate and to market those goods in a way that Games Workshop believes is illegitimate, then everyone should be recognizing Nick's personal sacrifice for the industry at large.

Never forget!

Given the above CHS was the victim in this case.

I am very glad that CHS got pro bono representation against what is treading fairly close to a harassing SLAPP by GW.

GW was attempting to use its large war chest to force compliance in a matter where they had no moral high ground.

At this point... I have bought more models from CHS in the past two weeks than I have bought from GW in a full year.

So, one consequence has been increased exposure for CHS, with no gain to GW.

The Auld Grump

 plastictrees wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Nick Villacci stood up to GW. Either he stood up for the community and industry at large, or he stood up against a bully who ignored the realities of the law, who ignored the legitimate nature of Nick's business, and forced him into a fight or die situation.

Either way, kudos to Nick Villacci. Congratulations to Nick Villacci. If Nick took a stand for the industry, if Nick fought to prove that the many companies like CHS have the right to produce goods that Games Workshop believes are illegitimate and to market those goods in a way that Games Workshop believes is illegitimate, then everyone should be recognizing Nick's personal sacrifice for the industry at large.

Never forget!

Lol, that's pretty funny plastictrees.

Nick didn't die though, and neither has Chapterhouse. I get a little riled when people argue that a plaintiff who filed one the the largest, most complicated, and craziest copyright cases in US history against a due making shoulder pads in his garage is somehow a victim. At the very least, if you want to be totally unemotional about it, it was a civil suit in which both parties had a good faith basis to believe they were in the right. Still though, it should have settled out years ago. If you want a more martyr-like post, I put up a really serious one on Warseer. Your pic would be totes apropos.

Nice posts, weeble, and I think that is very good analysis of the whole thing. This will certainly be good for wargaming as a whole... possibly very good! And without this case, the grey area of GW's very broad claims could have continued for years longer, casting greater doubt on where it would be legal to make 3rd party add-on pieces. Now, that area is much clearer.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Given the above CHS was the victim in this case.

I am very glad that CHS got pro bono representation against what is treading fairly close to a harassing SLAPP by GW.

GW was attempting to use its large war chest to force compliance in a matter where they had no moral high ground.

At this point... I have bought more models from CHS in the past two weeks than I have bought from GW in a full year.

So, one consequence has been increased exposure for CHS, with no gain to GW.

The Auld Grump

As I have posted before. The key to GW survival is 3rd party licensing as well as never getting into this lawsuit all together. But nope they chose this route.

The millions lost because of missed opportunities.

"Greed can kill a business just as fast as the proverbial bullet to the head".

@ Weeble.

Warseer is a non issue. They lost their influence years ago on how they run things over there. Reminds me of Games Workshop in a way.

What matters to me is this site. The owners, the Mods, the people with reason, such as yourself and others that makes this site what it is. The best of the best.

Adam.

Well said Mr Longwalker and Mr Grump.

My favourite part of this whole case was that someone had the balls to stand up to GW legal and show other companies that beating their C & D letters can be done.
I think I'm going to buy some chapterhouse products just to support the company, even though I don't actually want any

 Adam LongWalker wrote:


As I have posted before. The key to GW survival is 3rd party licensing as well as never getting into this lawsuit all together. But nope they chose this route.

The issue with licenses is so let's say GW offered a license to Chapter house... Now Chapter house, being a license holder for official GW bitz says "Hey GW... we own the license to produce shoulderpads and conversion kits... You better do something about all those non-license holders infringing and cutting in to our bottom line as a license holder"

When you license your product, you usually can't extend the same license to competing companies for competing products and you are also going to have disgruntled license holders if you are not protecting their interests. So if CH gets a license, what about everyone else who makes shoulderpads? CH would expect that all 3rd party pads went to them and that GW sue 'the next guy' out of business. Then CH risks 'the next guy' resisting the C&D and CH finds they have been paying GW a license for a product 'the next guy' can sell for free.

So I really don't see how any licenses can or exist as no one would want to pay for a license a product which directly competes with FW or another license holder, they would want exclusive rights and for GW to 'enforce' those exclusive rights. (or attempt to via legal recourse, which puts us right back to the exact same lawsuit)

One possibility is an Open License.

WotC, as a non random example, decided that trying to protect D&D as an IP was important, but that challenging every nickle and dime publisher would bleed the company - as it had TSR, who did go after small operations, then settled - more often than not paying the challenged party's fees.

So, they came up with the OGL - which allowed folks to use the mechanics without risking loss of the IP, and with the D20 STL which gave a recognizable trade mark for use in product dress.

The result was a resurgence in the RPG industry - I went from being the oldest gamer that I know to third or fourth, as older players were brought back into the fold.

Whether or not people liked the OGL movement it did succeed in growing the hobby.

The Auld Grump

Imagine how much GW could earn if the US Army bought a licence to use grenade launchers

Skullhammer wrote:
Yeah - what! It's CHS that's been proved to do illegal things not GW it don't matter that CHS was cleared of 75% of claims they still stole GWs ip for 25% of the claims. So according to some on here and else where it would be ok to steal a quarter of anything if your standing up to someone be it a larger company or a supermarket who you dont agree with.

Did GW put in to many claims it seams so but they were in the end proved to have a case against CHS and as for nick some comments on here and else where you'd think he's next for sainthood the way he's bigged up just remember he stole someone elses IP (proven in court) regardless of how much.

I'm going to be blunt, mean, and probably get modded for this, but here it goes:

This post, Skullhammer, demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea, whatsoever, about any of the real, legal issues set forth in this case. It also demonstrates that you haven't bothered to educate yourself at all over the last two and a half years of the preceedings. Such ignorance is absolutely inexcusable, especially when this very forum has maintained an incredibly long and detailed thread on that very subject. Your unwillingness to educate yourself on the facts of the matter are nothing more than intellectual laziness.

I don't mind it. But the case has been ruled on (provisionally) and CHS has been found to infringe (illegally ) on 25% of the claims and so were in the wrong the intrices of the case are boring to me, I'm no leagal person, so all I see is the verdic which says CHS were in the wrong on a chunk of the claims.

My opinion of the way it was delt with by GW is that they went a bit gung Ho but no worse than other company's who do/done the same thing. And as to the saint comment just read others comments about him.

You don't see the verdict that GW was in the wrong on a three times larger chunk of the claims.

In the current non-final verdict, CHS was found guilty of using Roman numbers without a GW licence. That's why the judge wants to have a talk with the jury before making this official. So much for "proved to do illegal things".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You don't see the verdict that GW was in the wrong on a three times larger chunk of the claims.

That does seem to get conveniently ignored at times...

When I was a school aged lad, we had learned about percentages, fractions, etc... 3/4ths was larger than 1/4th... GW LOST on more claims than it won, which would seem to me, that CHS won the case...

Redacted. --Janthkin

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
When I was a school aged lad, we had learned about percentages, fractions, etc... 3/4ths was larger than 1/4th... GW LOST on more claims than it won, which would seem to me, that CHS won the case...

I learned about numbers to and $25,000 is greater than $0

 cincydooley wrote:
I learned about numbers to and $25,000 is greater than $0

That's not what I told my student loan officers

And 25,000 is a lot larger than 0, but CHS won the ability to keep producing a majority of it's products, which in the long run can make them more than 25,000

 Alfndrate wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I learned about numbers to and $25,000 is greater than $0

That's not what I told my student loan officers [/q]

Oy vey. I hear you there, dude. I made the mistake of going to a private school for both undergrad and grad work. WTF was I thinking.


[q]
And 25,000 is a lot larger than 0, but CHS won the ability to keep producing a majority of it's products, which in the long run can make them more than 25,000

True. But he'll never get a dime of my money. Maybe I am in the minority here, but his handling of his entire business and online interactions I find very distasteful.

I was really hoping his KS would fail (and it should, those renders look fuggin terrible) but there's a buyer for everything, as the Ostrich Pillow proves.