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.

@ biccat - I never said that distinctly delineated characters are not protectable under copyrights. I argued that the Tervigon does not rise to the level of distinctly deliniated and that the test itself is inherently problematic and disputed. Ergo, your comparison with the distinctly delineated character "Superman" was not helpful and somewhat misleading.

I also disagree with your interpretation of "out of literary environment." I believe out of literary environment constitutes out of the expressions in which the character is described, such that the character has "a life of its own" independent of the works in which it appears and thus survives in the minds of readers long after the particulars of the story are forgotten.

The literary environment that the character is in is not relevant if the character is independently protectable. The test is to determine if the charcter is independently protectable and then compare the presentation of the alleged character in the accused work and determine if it satisfies the "substantial similarity" test as to the character, not the story the character is in. I feel that this is an essential concept in the protection of literary characters independently of the works in which they appear.

A story could infringe The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn even if the character of Huck Finn was not independently protectable. The story itself could be copied in terms of plot, narrative structure, etc. even if it used entirely different words and different characters. That said, if an accused story involved Huck Finn traveling down the Missouri River but was not "substantially similar" to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, which is entirely possible, in order for the character of Huck Finn to be infringed independently of the work as a whole, the character would have to be "distinctly delineated" and thus independently protectable.

Literary environment is therefore limited to the specific works in which the character appears which are protectable in their entirety, Huck Finn included.

And if you're not saying that the Tervigon is a "distinctly delineated" character, the use of distinctly delineated characters as an example of a copyrightable concept is not only flawed, but additionally irrelevant.

I also think the Tervigon image contains protectable elements insofar as each expression is taken as a whole and compared in its entirety to the entirety of any accused works. Of course it goes without saying that only those elements of the allegedly copyrighted images that are protectable are relevant.

Finally, your example of a compilation requires that it is possible to parse the work into discrete elements drawn from multiple copyrighted works. Insofar as this is true, I agree that the work can both infringe and be protectable. However, it is important to remember that not all works can so easily be parsed down in this manner.

weeble1000 wrote:And if you're not saying that the Tervigon is a "distinctly delineated" character, the use of distinctly delineated characters as an example of a copyrightable concept is not only flawed, but additionally irrelevant.

I agree that it's irrelevant. I didn't raise that point.

I said that Superman is a copyrighted work because of the artistic expression involved in creating him. His likeness, his outfit, and his unique "S" makes him protectable, whether fighting crime or enjoying a sundae in Sacramento.

weeble1000 wrote:I also think the Tervigon image contains protectable elements insofar as each expression is taken as a whole and compared in its entirety to the entirety of any accused works. Of course it goes without saying that only those elements of the allegedly copyrighted images that are protectable are relevant.

Yup, totally agree. The test will be: would an ordinary person think the two are substantially similar such that the only way CH got it's model was copying GW's IP?

This is not a good place for CH to be, IMO.

weeble1000 wrote:Finally, your example of a compilation requires that it is possible to parse the work into discrete elements drawn from multiple copyrighted works. Insofar as this is true, I agree that the work can both infringe and be protectable. However, it is important to remember that not all works can so easily be parsed down in this manner.

I agree, which is part of what makes this case interesting. The idea of a sculptor copying an image in the manner done by CH (assuming they did copy it) is fairly unique, and I'm very interested in this aspect of the case.

My point in responding to your post on page 10 was to point out that this case isn't completely open-and-shut like you made it out to be (specifically: "If you draw a picture and call it a Tervigon, and I design a sculpture that is very similar to the drawing and call it a Tervigon, my impression from the precedent I am aware of is that these would be considered different works and that the sculpture does not infringe the drawing").

There are some really interesting aspects of copyright law at play here, and if GW will get their together, we can find out some interesting things about how the law protects drawings against infringement by sculptors.

For some reason I thought the case was to get a preliminary hearing today, (30th March), is/did it?

Andrew

aka_mythos wrote:A registered trademark just means they filed extra paperwork with the government that allows them to get a higher amount of statutory damages if an infringment occurs. When a company claims a Trademark or registers one, the government only cares if anyone else has registered it, but just like a patent that doesn't gurantee that issuance is correct. Companies lose patents and trademarks often enough when someone comes in and shows the court of the common use or existing use within bounds of the claimed protection. The term Space Marine existed before 40k. The term "Space Marine" appeared in books and games before GW's use. The long list someone could generate given enough research would make GW's claim shaky and could invalidate their claimed TM.

Yes, and no. You need to understand what an incontestable trademark is. Generally speaking, no claims that an incontestable trademark is invalid will be entertained by the court. It doesn't matter that "Space Marine" has been used as a phrase before. In the context of board games, parlor games, war games, & etc., "Space Marine" is an incontestable trademark belonging to GW; absent a showing of abandonment, fraud in obtaining the mark, or it becoming generic, there is no challenging the validity of the mark.

AndrewC wrote:For some reason I thought the case was to get a preliminary hearing today, (30th March), is/did it?

Andrew

I believe a pre-hearing status conference was scheduled for the two lead attorneys to appear before the judge. I doubt we will find anything out for a couple of days, if at all.

Eldanar, thanks I was beginning to think I was imagining things!

Cheers

Andrew

Central US time is six or eight hours behind the UK so the working day is still young at the time of this posting (4:34 p.m. British Summer Time).

I love that I'm getting a pro bono legal education here. Keep it up!

Tantras wrote:I love that I'm getting a pro bono legal education here. Keep it up!

Ooops.

Mandatory disclaimer: while I am an attorney, I am not your (generic "you") attorney. All my comments in this thread are my opinion only, and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, seek out an attorney to represent you.

Am still giggling at keeping up the pro bono

apologies for lowering the tone.

Janthkin wrote:

Tantras wrote:I love that I'm getting a pro bono legal education here. Keep it up!

Ooops.

Mandatory disclaimer: while I am an attorney, I am not your (generic "you") attorney. All my comments in this thread are my opinion only, and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, seek out an attorney to represent you.

+1.

Discussions as to the state of the law are not legal opinions and should not be construed as such. This information may not be accurate and/or your situation may be different from that being discussed in this thread. If you have a specific legal issue, you should consult with an attorney.

I think Tantras was making a knob joke. No need for lawyer small print.

notprop wrote:I think Tantras was making a knob joke. No need for lawyer small print.

Don't tell them that! They'll sue for... something...

Continue, gentlemen!

Janthkin wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:I just wanted to expand on this, and point out how this can all become confusing to lay people because of the 3 distinct types of Intellectual Property in the US;

Just a quick note, to point out that there are (at least) 4 categories of IP law - Trade Secret belongs in there, too. But that's pretty tangential.

Eeeeeeeeh... to be honest, I think including things like trade secret in a general discussion of IP just makes things more obscure, not less. There are so many differences (not least of which is that trade secrets are primarily state, not federal), and so many types of idiosyncratic IP exists at the state level (image rights, for example, vary wildly in protection).

Janthkin wrote:One of the perils of theoretical discussion versus a real-world scenario - the pesky facts sometimes get in the way.

GW HAS a registered trademark for "Space Marine," in the class of goods including "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith" (No. 74186534). Moreover, they've had that mark since 1993. At this stage, it is incontestable. In practice, trying to argue the validity of the "Space Marine" trademark is a losing battle.
...

Intrerestingly enough, GW would be compelled to respond if Blizzard made a Starcraft board game, and included "Space Marines." Undefended trademarks are a no-no. But I expect Blizzard would simply call them "Terran Marines," as is more common in the game & surrounding fluff.

Heh, and one of the perils of discussing law is that nothing comes down to "yes" or "no", but always "it depends...", but I digress.

I don't want to get too deep into the weeds, so I'll just point out that while what you say is very true, I would quibble with the emphasis, that is, that it's not so cut and dry as you seem to be suggesting. I don't want to get too off topic though, so I will concede your point.

As a practical matter, it occurred to me that the greatest strength of the "Space Marine" mark is actually how generic and, in a word, bland, it is. It's a bit like calling your action figure "Army Soldier" or "Action Hero" etc; it's a term that would be used in description, rather then designation.

But I think I'm now undermining my attempt to clarify things, so I'll step back and wait for more updates about the actual case, as opposed to the hypothetical one.

Janthkin wrote:Yes, and no. You need to understand what an incontestable trademark is. Generally speaking, no claims that an incontestable trademark is invalid will be entertained by the court. It doesn't matter that "Space Marine" has been used as a phrase before. In the context of board games, parlor games, war games, & etc., "Space Marine" is an incontestable trademark belonging to GW; absent a showing of abandonment, fraud in obtaining the mark, or it becoming generic, there is no challenging the validity of the mark.

I was trying to say it was a generic term before it was issued and only more so now. The arguement that it was an improperly granted TM by virtue of it having been generic at the time is a valid one. A court can cancel a trademark as it sees fit and the erroneous granting of a TM is more than good enough grounds to do so. So while GW has a TM on Space Marines, it has little strength.

The strength of trademarks are oftened weighed by the nature of the name. Rangeing from coined, arbitrary, suggestive, and descriptive in relative strength of claim. Coined are made up words; arbitrary are prexisting words that have no context to the nature of the company or product; suggestive imply relationships between company, product, and use; and descriptive words put together to explain what something is. Descriptive is one step shy of being generic and Space Marines, independent of the context of its past and present outside use, is just that, descriptive. With that context however it would not be difficult to assert that its generic.

So maybe GW should just TM "Adeptus Astartes" and use that instead.

Tantras wrote:

notprop wrote:I think Tantras was making a knob joke. No need for lawyer small print.

Don't tell them that! They'll sue for... something...

Continue, gentlemen!

Quite right, but I just want to point out that while I am a knob jokist, I am not your knob jokist. All my comments in this thread are my opinion only, and should not be taken as knob advice. If you need knob advice, seek out an doctor to look at you.

I trust that this is clear.

Like the man said continue.....

Janthkin wrote:

Tantras wrote:I love that I'm getting a pro bono legal education here. Keep it up!

Ooops.

Mandatory disclaimer: while I am an attorney, I am not your (generic "you") attorney. All my comments in this thread are my opinion only, and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, seek out an attorney to represent you.

You know... Dakka does have sig lines. ; )


Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Janthkin wrote:

Tantras wrote:I love that I'm getting a pro bono legal education here. Keep it up!

Ooops.

Mandatory disclaimer: while I am an attorney, I am not your (generic "you") attorney. All my comments in this thread are my opinion only, and should not be taken as legal advice. If you need legal advice, seek out an attorney to represent you.

You know... Dakka does have sig lines. ; )

Yes, but it's only threads like this one that require any disclaimer.

Yeah but it makes you sound clever the rest of the time.
People are more reluctant to argue with a chap with some legalese erudition in the sig.

This I can personally testify to.

aka_mythos wrote:

Janthkin wrote:Yes, and no. You need to understand what an incontestable trademark is. Generally speaking, no claims that an incontestable trademark is invalid will be entertained by the court. It doesn't matter that "Space Marine" has been used as a phrase before. In the context of board games, parlor games, war games, & etc., "Space Marine" is an incontestable trademark belonging to GW; absent a showing of abandonment, fraud in obtaining the mark, or it becoming generic, there is no challenging the validity of the mark.

I was trying to say it was a generic term before it was issued and only more so now. The arguement that it was an improperly granted TM by virtue of it having been generic at the time is a valid one. A court can cancel a trademark as it sees fit and the erroneous granting of a TM is more than good enough grounds to do so. So while GW has a TM on Space Marines, it has little strength.

The strength of trademarks are oftened weighed by the nature of the name. Rangeing from coined, arbitrary, suggestive, and descriptive in relative strength of claim. Coined are made up words; arbitrary are prexisting words that have no context to the nature of the company or product; suggestive imply relationships between company, product, and use; and descriptive words put together to explain what something is. Descriptive is one step shy of being generic and Space Marines, independent of the context of its past and present outside use, is just that, descriptive. With that context however it would not be difficult to assert that its generic.

If the "Space Marine" trademark was applied to actual warriors or soldiers who served in space, it would be descriptive.

Here, though, we're talking about miniature plastic & pewter models. And trademarks are all about context - see "Apple," the fruit, the record label, and the technology company.

Suffice it to say, I think the trademark is actually a pretty good one, particularly given all of the secondary meaning it has acquired within its field of use.

The Northern District of Illinois has a procedural rule that every motion submitted to the Court must be presented in person within a few days. That is the hearing scheduled for today. Most Courts in the US don't require in person presentment like this.

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 30, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., we shall appear before
the Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, Courtroom 2103, United States District Court, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and shall then and there present DEFENDANT
CHAPTERHOUSE STUDIOS’ RENEWED RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COPYRIGHT CLAIMS. "

@ biccat - Yes, you did present Superman as an example of a protectable concept and liken it to the Tervigon.

biccat wrote:Also, your idea that only the specific embodiment of a character/image is protected is directly at odds with existing law about characters. For example, Superman is a copyrighted "concept" in the same manner that the Tervigon is copyrighted.

I'm saying that the comparison is both flawed and irrelevant, but you raised the point and I debated it. You also brought up the Rogers v Koons case and I debated that. I don't mind you backing away from it, but I think you should take ownership of what you've argued.

I never called this case open and shut. I think Chapterhouse have some very compelling arguments and I believe that if Games Workshop defines its claims properly we'll see a lot of summary judgement from Judge Kennelly. And I also don't believe that saying "my impression from the precedent that I am aware of" would lead one to think that I don't believe there is room for argument, dissenting opinion, various interpretations, or additional relevant information.

I think I'm being rather reasonable, stating my opinions clearly, identifying what information I am relying on, and making that information accessible to those with whom I am discussing this issue. I respect that we have a difference of opinion on this issue, but I think it would be more helpful in the long run if you take ownership of what you've argued and provide evidence to support it. I appreciate that you brought up the Koons case. I think that case is very interesting. However, I disagree with your interpretation of its application to the concept of allegations of copyright infringement across different mediums. I've explained my position and offered an alternative interpretation of the case, supported by a brief analysis of the Court's opinion.

You argued that the Tervigon is protectable in the same way that Superman is a protectable character. I disagreed with you and referenced a relevant article on the subject. So far you've just been stating opinions with no support. You've even mentioned that you've read and analyzed the article that I referenced. But then you corrected me without supporting your point other than by suggesting that you are an authority on the subject owing to the fact that you read the article and cited it in a thesis. I don't know where your thesis is, what it is titled, what is written in said thesis, or even that you wrote a thesis or graduated from law school. How did you cite the work in your thesis? What is your opinion about the author's arguments? How is my interpretation incorrect and upon what do you base that opinion?

If you don't provide evidence to support your opinions it is difficult to have a discussion. Neither of us can rely on the other's education, background, or expertise. But what we can do is explain how we have formed our opinions and thus have no need to be concerned with one another's knowledge and expertise or lack thereof.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Yeah but it makes you sound clever the rest of the time.
People are more reluctant to argue with a chap with some legalese erudition in the sig.

This I can personally testify to.

This is very true. It's your sig line that keeps me from ever arguing with you. ; )

Eric

weeble1000 wrote:@ biccat - Yes, you did present Superman as an example of a protectable concept and liken it to the Tervigon.

Here's a decent article on the subject (at least on a preliminary reading). See especially Walt Disney v. Air Pirates, a particularly important case on character copyrightability. The court distinguished between Mickey Mouse (an illustrated character) on one hand and Sam Spade (a literary character) on the other. Comic book characters, in short, can contain unique elements of expression apart from their unprotectable concept.

It is to this extent that the Tervigon is similar to the character of Superman, they both contain unique elements of expression separate from their character.

weeble1000 wrote:I'm saying that the comparison is both flawed and irrelevant, but you raised the point and I debated it. You also brought up the Rogers v Koons case and I debated that. I don't mind you backing away from it, but I think you should take ownership of what you've argued.

I cited Rogers v. Koons for the proposition that a sculpture can infringe a copyrighted image. I'm taking ownership of that. I'm not saying that Koons is dispositive, far from it, but rather that an image can be infringed by a sculptural work.

weeble1000 wrote:I never called this case open and shut.

No, but in my opinion you were dismissive of the idea that a sculpture could infringe a copyrighted image. Since the Tervigon is one of the central elements (and, AFAIK, CH isn't copying any of GW's currently-produced models), it seemed that you were suggesting the case was that easy.

weeble1000 wrote:I think Chapterhouse have some very compelling arguments and I believe that if Games Workshop defines its claims properly we'll see a lot of summary judgement from Judge Kennelly. And I also don't believe that saying "my impression from the precedent that I am aware of" would lead one to think that I don't believe there is room for argument, dissenting opinion, various interpretations, or additional relevant information.

I apologize if I misrepresented your position. I referenced Koons because I thought you would appreciate the new information (new precedent, although, not really since it's in the 2nd circuit, we'll call it persuasive).

weeble1000 wrote:I think I'm being rather reasonable, stating my opinions clearly, identifying what information I am relying on, and making that information accessible to those with whom I am discussing this issue.

I think you've been very helpful, and I enjoy your updates as well as your discussion on the point.

weeble1000 wrote:I respect that we have a difference of opinion on this issue, but I think it would be more helpful in the long run if you take ownership of what you've argued and provide evidence to support it. I appreciate that you brought up the Koons case. I think that case is very interesting. However, I disagree with your interpretation of its application to the concept of allegations of copyright infringement across different mediums. I've explained my position and offered an alternative interpretation of the case, supported by a brief analysis of the Court's opinion.

I wasn't sure what your alternative interpretation of the case was, unless it was that the defendant tried to copy the Puppies photograph. And on that front, I'm not sure how CH is much different.

weeble1000 wrote:You argued that the Tervigon is protectable in the same way that Superman is a protectable character. I disagreed with you and referenced a relevant article on the subject. So far you've just been stating opinions with no support.

Do you think the above case (Walt Disney v. Air Pirates) is helpful in supporting my point? I know we're writing for two different audiences here, but if you want a list of cases, I'd have to decline.

weeble1000 wrote:You've even mentioned that you've read and analyzed the article that I referenced. But then you corrected me without supporting your point other than by suggesting that you are an authority on the subject owing to the fact that you read the article and cited it in a thesis.

The article on the subject was about literary characters, not illustrations. There are substantial differences between the two (see Air Pirates), not the least of which is that a literary character (Sam Spade) doesn't include any expression separate from his character. Illustrations, in the case of Superman and the Tervigon, include expressive content, not merely an abstraction.

weeble1000 wrote:If you don't provide evidence to support your opinions it is difficult to have a discussion. Neither of us can rely on the other's education, background, or expertise. But what we can do is explain how we have formed our opinions and thus have no need to be concerned with one another's knowledge and expertise or lack thereof.

I simply mentioned my expertise as background information, not as an appeal to authority.

Anyway, I hope you find the case cited above interesting reading material. Please let me know if you disagree that it is helpful in understanding the issues at stake.

Finally, I'm sorry if I came off improperly, I really do think you've been mostly spot on, but simply disagreed slightly with your analysis. Also, your updates are an excellent distraction. Besides, we get paid to fight over this stuff, so why not have some fun with it?

I am the only one that thinks that "Walt Disney vs Air Pirates" sounds like the greatest movie/comic/game ever?

Yeah, that'd be pretty sweet.


Back on topic a little, I was talking to people about the developments here, and I have a theory on GW's angle.

Flat out stating that they don't have to/won't make specific claims of infringement means that they won't win the case.

It is possible that the GW lawyers already know that they aren't going to win this case. They aren't going to put Chapterhouse out of business with it either (since the lawyers are working pro-bono).

But they might want to keep the Bully Card to play again later. If Games Workshop were to bring forward art work for the court to examine and compare to CH minis, then they would risk setting a precedent in the future. Basically, if the court takes a good long look at what CH is doing, and rules that it is legal, GW won't be able to throw their weight around as much in the future.

If this is thrown out of court due to lack of specificity, then they might be able to avoid setting a court precedent for other companies like Chapterhouse.

If they can't win this case, they might just want to keep from losing the ability to threaten small companies into oblivion.

Could we leave the "who we want to win, dis the other lot stuff please?
The thread has been going along really well without such wranglings whereas the previous threads that had those arguments closed.
It may be trying to tell us something.

The thread has been excellent on the whole with some insightful contributions. It would be a shame if that were to be spoiled at this stage.
edit: iirc Raincity, the mods have issued statements on this thread that such comments will be given the mighty Foot of Gork treatment and it may be as well to modify your post
Thank you

"PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 30, 2011 at 9:30 a.m., we shall appear before
the Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly, Courtroom 2103, United States District Court, 219 South
Dearborn Street, Chicago, Illinois 60604 and shall then and there present DEFENDANT
CHAPTERHOUSE STUDIOS’ RENEWED RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
PLAINTIFF’S COPYRIGHT CLAIMS. "

Sorry if I have missed something but may we assume this took place and is there any news please?

I can't really contribute anything on the legal discussion, I'm in St. Louis for two weeks of training and I'm pretty busy.

There's some interesting stuff here, I suppose. I think it's good for people to realize that GW doesn't necessarily have amazingly good lawyers: they simply have them. When you're the only one with the money to go to court, you don't need a great lawyer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

raincity wrote:[Mod Edit - Rule breaking post by user 'raincity' deleted and had to be deleted here too.]

It's comments like this that frustrate me. I mean, I'm a lawyer, so I know I see the world differently than most. My job once required me to explain to a dead man's wife why he wasn't disabled due to back pain, even though he died of a narcotic pain reliever overdose. So, I don't get too tied up in the emotions of the matter.

That said, I'm not sure why people seem to think that CHS is doing anything that morally reprehensible.

Lorek wrote:

odinsgrandson wrote:By the way, it is likely that this topic will get out of hand, and eventually be locked. I understand that many people here have very strong feelings on this subject, so let's try and keep it civil for as long as we can.

This! Please keep it civil AND on-topic.

Just as a reminder, this discussion is has nothing to do with whether or not we as individuals like or dislike a particular party this is in, so lets just discuss the actual matter at hand here.

Janthkin wrote:If the "Space Marine" trademark was applied to actual warriors or soldiers who served in space, it would be descriptive.

Here, though, we're talking about miniature plastic & pewter models. And trademarks are all about context - see "Apple," the fruit, the record label, and the technology company.

Suffice it to say, I think the trademark is actually a pretty good one, particularly given all of the secondary meaning it has acquired within its field of use.

Apple is regarded as an "arbitrary" TM'ed name. Space Marine is descriptive of the feature and character that distinguishing those miniatures from non-space "marine" miniatures; but that the same distinction is applicable to many other miniatures and existed in tabletop games before 40k. To make the assertion that GW has a strong claim to that TM, you have to believe there wasn't a common use in the area of gaming before hand and that its use in those ways has not continued today. Characters from Aliens, Gears of War, Starship Troopers, and Halo are all instances where they've been refered to as space marines; those characters have appeared across many media and are only the ones that immediately come to mind; some pre-existed before other have continued that traditional use. They all used other terminology as well, but the term space marine is applied to describe those militant characters. It was in common use then and it still is now. They didn't TM it till 1993, almost 7 years after their creation. Let's put it another way, what is the entymology of GW's "Space Marines?"-Its "space marine," not "space" and "marine." GW didn't take two separate words together to make a name, they took an established description.

GW took what was used as traditional description of a particular sci-fi archetype, capitalized it and treated it as a proper noun, that is the extent of what GW's done with creating that "name."

Polonius wrote:
There's some interesting stuff here, I suppose. I think it's good for people to realize that GW doesn't necessarily have amazingly good lawyers: they simply have them. When you're the only one with the money to go to court, you don't need a great lawyer.

I'd like to say here that Foley and Lardner is a very good law firm with qualified, talented attorneys. I don't know any of the Foley Attorneys representing Games Workshop personally, but I've disparaged Games Workshop's representation a bit, and I don't want anyone to think that my comments are intended to reflect on the law firm as a whole. I'm also getting the impression that Mr. Moskin isn't that involved in the GW v Chapterhouse lawsuit. Personally, I don't even think he read the first amended complaint before it was submitted to the Court. There also might have been a little hiccup from the loss of Heidi Belongia, as she was primarily handling the case on the Chicago end until she left Foley and Lardner.

I do think you make a good point Polonius that money does't always equal the best attorneys, and hiring an expensive law firm doesn't guarantee that you are going to get the best attorney in the world. However, I do believe Games Workshop hired Foley and Lardner because it is a high caliber firm that has a strong name in IP litigation.

There's nothing new on the docket, but I'll try to find out what happened at the hearing yesterday.

@biccat - Thank you very much for your response. I very much appreciate your reasonable reaction and I apologize if I mistook your tone or meaning. I'll take a look at the documents you've mentioned when I've got some time. I have a report to get out ASAP, although the case already settled. It's hard to find motivation to write up a report on research for a case that isn't going to court, but it needs to get done.