Lone Wolf Development sends C&D to Privateer Press

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.

**Moz**

Kanluwen wrote:Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

No really, Lonewolf asks that PP delete all posts referring to army builder as a generic term and then apply a filter to the term army builder to something that is not property of Lonewolf.

Unfortunately, there are active references to other tools on your site that misappropriate our trademark. In addition, this misuse by others has led to multiple posters on your forums using the term "army builder" to describe the category of tools. This needs to be remedied, and, under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, we require your assistance in doing so.
There are two things that need to be done. First of all, improper references to the Army Builder trademark on the forums must be addressed. This can be achieved in either of two ways, or potentially a combination of both, at your discretion. The first option would be to remove such posts. Since this could appear harsh and potentially disrupt forum discussions, an acceptable alternative would be to revise such posts to utilize a generic term (e.g. "roster construction tool", "list createor", or "points calculator") in place of the "Army Builder" name.

**RogueMarket**

i have the letter attached in my posts above - check it out.

**AgeOfEgos**

Kanluwen wrote:Except that's not what Lone Wolf asked.

That's what Privateer did out of pettiness.

They asked that Privateer check every instance that exists on their forums of the term "REMOVED BY LONE WOLF" and make sure it was referring to the actual program and not a generic tool set. Within 72 hours. In addition, they asked that PP monitor every thread in every forum for that term to ensure it only references their specific program in all future postings.

I think the response was golden.

**Gornall**

Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

**Agamemnon2**

Deleted. See restatement of my key points on page 5 instead.

**Kanluwen**

Very interesting.

But it was kinda petty of Privateer to do what they did, rather than just a sticky note.

**Major Malfunction**

Meh.

**AgeOfEgos**

Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

"Assuming that the improper references to tools using the name "Army Builder" are rectified and you confirm to us within 72 hours that you have done so."

**Fizyx**

Kan, a public download was linked earlier in this thread.

**Valhallan42nd**

I'm going to start referring to all my tanks as warmachines, and all my infantry as hordes. They're rather generic terms, wouldn't you agree?

**AgeOfEgos**

Agamemnon2 wrote:
Gornall wrote:Basically, LWD is asking for two things:

1. All "incorrect" references to "army builders" be removed/edited.
2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

@AoE: I think they had 72 hours to contact them, not neccessarily fix everything.

Either one of which LWD surely knew was impossible to actually accomplish, yet they went ahead with their harebrained idea anyway. Well, I've sent my two cents by email to them directly, I suggest interested parties do the same.

That email, for interested parties;

rob@wolflair.com

**Gornall**

AgeOfEgos wrote:"Assuming that the improper references to tools using the name "Army Builder" are rectified and you confirm to us within 72 hours that you have done so."

I stand corrected.

@Agamemnon2: The second one is actually pretty easy to do. Posting a sticky or adding it to the forum rules should suffice. In any case, they are required by law to defend their trademark or lose it.

**lord_blackfang**

aka_mythos wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.

This is technically true... in the exactly same way it's true that torrent sites like Piratebay aren't doing anything illegal. Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

**Le Grognard**

I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

**Leggy**

lord_blackfang wrote:
aka_mythos wrote:
lord_blackfang wrote:In my own opinion, this is rather funny coming from a company whose entire business model is based on copyright infringement.

Their business model is built around a gaming aid. Their end user agreement stipulate you own any book that accompanies the rules you use with in their program. That isn't copyright infringement. This is an ostentatious calculator, preset numerical values. Beyond that it self organizes what the user already owns.

This is technically true... in the exactly same way it's true that torrent sites like Piratebay aren't doing anything illegal. Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

The major selling point would be ease of use. Although it's possible to create an army list without having to actually own the codex, the summary rules in the AB files are typically so simplified it'd be like gaming with a BoLS Rumour summary in place of your codex.

(At least they were for v2 of the program. Couldn't find a cracked version of v3 on piratebay

)

**privateer4hire**

I knew there were other good reasons not to spend $30 or more on a program that also required a subscription update. Classic.

**Kanluwen**

Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Agreed.

Although, lately I've been using Microsoft Word.

**Rated G**

I made an army builder with excel.

**insaniak**

Moz wrote:No really, Lonewolf asks that PP delete all posts referring to army builder as a generic term and then apply a filter to the term army builder to something that is not property of Lonewolf.

Which I find a little puzzling, to be honest.

Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

I'd be curious (not enough to do any research, admittedly) if Hoover took exception to an entire generation of English people referring to every vacuum cleaner as a Hoover...

lord_blackfang wrote:Legally, Lone Wolf is in the clear, but we all know the major selling point of their product is the ability to illegally share intellectual property.

That's never been the main selling point, since people have always been aware that you still need a copy of the codex to use it properly, and that the datafiles are frequently wrong.

The main selling point to pretty much everyone I've ever talked to about Army Builder has always been simply that it makes designing a list easier.

**twistinthunder**

lord_blackfang wrote:
filbert wrote:Seems a bit of an over-reaction really and I dont fancy Lone Wolf's chances of having that stand up in court.

I'm almost certain PP's overreaction was done on purpose and is delightfully spiteful.

yes delightful. though personally i know it wouldnt stand up in court and would tell LWD to shove it were the sun dont shine, its their own fault if they're going to use a generic name for their software...

also technically if its a trademark then its : Army Builder(TM) not army builder and im pretty sure noone says Army Builder(TM) as a general term.

**aka_mythos**

This all boils down to the fact that PP was planning on having its own army calculator and data organizing system that was being referred to as Army Builder. Given that LW is pretty much a single product company they can't really afford to allow someone to walk off with their products name. LW is attempting to prevent ambiguity between the two systems, that is their right.

I'm usually on the other side of these discussion since I firmly believe that consumers should have more rights than they've been led to believe they do. In this instance it is a company utilizing copyright exactly as it was intended.

**lord_blackfang**

aka_mythos wrote:I'm usually on the other side of these discussion since I firmly believe that consumers should have more rights than they've been led to believe they do. In this instance it is a company utilizing copyright exactly as it was intended.

It's one thing to tell PP that they can't have use a trademarked name for another, similar product.

It's something else entirely to demand that PP censor their customer's online discussions because they're using the word wrong.

**Railguns**

This all seems very silly to me. Then again, I come from a region where every type of soda imaginable is called a coke , regardless of brand.

**derek**

Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Rated G wrote:I made an army builder with excel.

Careful, or else you're going to get a C&D sent to Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and Mead.

**Kilkrazy**

The purpose of a trademark is to identify a specific product or brand.

Trademarks are not copyright terms unless they are made up words like Sony.

The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark. When that happens, anyone can make and sell a product or brand with the same name.

That isn't really a good situation for anyone, as it allows any crappy product to be marketed as the real thing.

Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

**malfred**

derek wrote:
Le Grognard wrote:I have a free Army Builder (TM) that I use: book, paper, pencil, calculator.

Rated G wrote:I made an army builder with excel.

Careful, or else you're going to get a C&D sent to Microsoft, Texas Instruments, and Mead.

I hate to spoil a good joke, but a reference to MEAD would only work if Le Grognard
had said that he uses a five star, or whatever MEAD is calling their heavy duty notebooks
these days.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

Or if just any random video company labeled their DVDs with the name Wicked
or Digital Playground.

Wait, what?

**Orlanth**

Saldiven wrote:Actually, EULA's stand up in court all the time. If you chose to click the "ok" button when you haven't read the EULA, it's just like signing loan documents without reading them. (Electronic "signatures" have held up in court, too.)

While no court has rendered a decision in regard to ALL such "click here" type EUL Agreements, there have been many that have, in fact, held up in court. One of the precedents stated that, since the buyer had to "agree" to the EULA before installation of the software was complete, then it was binding. I don't know if Army Builder requires EULA acceptance prior to installation or not.

Anyway, you can do a pretty quick internet search for the enforceability of EULAs. It depends on the nature of the specific EULA and the court that has heard it.

Actually I disagree. EULA's are an after the contract condition forced upon the rightful purchaser after they have committed themselves to using the product by purchasing it.

You don't sign the EULA by pressing Ok before purchase thus you are coerced. Agree or you cannot use what you have paid for. Contracts under coercion are not binding, and installation EULA notices are clearly post sale and thus coerced. Companies can bypass this if the software that has a pre-purchase disclaimer (on the box) saying EULA must be agreed upon before using this product, the vast majority do not, and assumption is no defence.

**lord_blackfang**

Kilkrazy wrote:The owner of a trademark has to defend it by suppressing incorrect use or he loses the trademark.

So how do they do that? If I call my cheap mp3 player an iPod when talking to my friend on the bus, can Apple sue the bus company? Because that's exactly what is going on here.

**insaniak**

Kilkrazy wrote:Imagine the chaos if every computer company in the world was able to change their name to Apple, or if all soft drinks were packed in cans marked Coke.

And that certainly would be a problem. It's a bit different from trying to stop the punters from using names in a general way like that, though...

**Elusive71**

aka_mythos wrote:I read all my EULA every time I buy a game or software. Only idiots ignore it. Its a legally binding contract.

Kind of a harsh generalization innit?

Gornall wrote:2. The userbase of the forums be "educated" in the trademark and the proper terminology. aka "army points calculators" versus "army builders".

insaniak wrote:Admittedly, I'm not trademark lawyer, but I would think it would be to a company's advantage to have their product name adopted as a generic term. Simply because, if every army design program is referred to as 'Army Builder', when someone goes looking for an army design program, what's the first one they think of?

Totally. How many people add "cotton swabs" to their grocery list rather than "Q-Tips"? There's other brands, but Q-Tips are the most widely sold. The problem for the owner of the trademark is that if it becomes generalized enough, they can lose their legal protection. Take Bayer's "aspirin" and Duncan's "yo-yos" for example. Even so, while their IP rights may have been lost, trademark generalization has only helped their sales.