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.

Alpharius wrote:OK - we get it everyone!

Omegon is always with you isn't he

TBD wrote:Unfortunately while you and I and others may be aware there also are many dumbarses who are not able to make the distinction. It's not exactly like this hasn't caused misinterpretations and wrongful assumption of fact @ Dakka & the internetz before. So better to prevent it, if possible.

People who think that everything posted on the internet is absolute truth can't be the measure for Dakka postings. And I'd rather like to read here the opinion of people with a law background than contributions like "I hate leechers, hang them without a trial".

Anyone who has dealt with lawyers will know that they never give anything except an opinion or a bill.

TBD, If you want a thread that is purely factual updates about the docket, perhaps we can request that such a thread be created and locked to disallow commentary. Alternatively, someone could host the documents pertaining to this case. I will be happy to pull them as they are posted and provide them in .pdf form. I think that would be a pretty good idea, actually, as such documents can be fiddly to access if you don't know where to start looking. Do you have any ideas about the best way to set this up? Does anybody else have any ideas?

That is a very kind offer.

It would be best done as a Article.

The author of an Article can lock it so only designated users have access to make edits.

I appreciate the commentary by our resident experts in the legal profession. It's a bit silly to expect everything being discussed in regards to a court case to be "only the facts" when it hasn't even gone to trial....thus the discussion. I'll assume here that noone here is directly involved in the case so all that we're going to get is commentary, discussion and yes, opinion.

TBD, it might help if you realize the litigious nature of America (sadly enough) that such caveats are both normal and necessary. Especially when attorneys are involved.

Kilkrazy wrote:Anyone who has dealt with lawyers will know that they never give anything except an opinion or a bill.

Well, that's pretty much all a lawyer has to offer. Law is simply offering an opinion about the law.

Paralegals/secretaries do most of the actual filing work.

That said, I think weeble1000 is spot on with his assumptions. The judge didn't like GW's amended complaint, but wasn't willing to grant CH's motion to dismiss. So he took option 2 and required GW to deal with early discovery.

I quite like the informative way this threads been going.
Opinions are valid, And informed opinions even more so.
The lawyers of this thread, have expressed their opinions, And one should remember that as they do this everyday,
they have more knowledge as to the inner workings of the courts.

Other people will think as they are inclined too,
And no amount of good information will change that.

All this whole situation is doing, is making me go ahead and make my
big orders from Chapterhouse now. They provide good conversion items
that aren't readily available elsewhere, at good prices.

Legalities aside, I figure anything that helps promote and encourage
the hobby can't be bad. Also, its not like they are releasing full kits
that replace 40k figures. You would still need the base kit that the
conversions would be added too... so that still gets sales for GW.

*shrugs* Oh well, no big deal to me either way.

Ironically, Games Workshop isn't going after the people who do make complete replacement kits (like Avatars of War or Mantic Games). Of course, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they did.


I know the opinions we bring up are really pretty insubstantial. I'd really love to see a page dedicated to only the facts of the case. Although I really like the discussion as well. If someone does put up an updates only page/thread, please let us all know about it here.

weeble1000 wrote:
My guess is that Judge Kennelly was rather unhappy with Games Workshop, but not so pissed off as to dismiss the case right off. This decision of his to require Games Workshop to respond to early discovery is a rather direct and pointed way to get some focus on the case..

I think you have an interesting idea there. Clearly, no one has brought forward enough evidence for a ruling, and the responsibility for that is squarely on the shoulders of the GW lawyers.

Another possibility is that he believes that GW's vagueness might be intentional (as I have supposed). It is possible that they want this case thrown out with as little specificity as possible, thus setting the weakest precedent possible. And maybe he wants to keep GW from doing this again.

Of course, that's assuming that the GW lawyers think the case is lost. There might be other reasons why they think the precedent should be vague- maybe they want to be able to bring up other issues later (or spring something on an under-prepared defense team).

At any rate, I think this might be the best thing for the community. Other miniatures companies are watching this, and it would be nice to have a very solid precedent set for the legality of these kinds of works.

Has there been any movement on the case, from either side?

Seems awfully quiet out there...

odinsgrandson wrote:Ironically, Games Workshop isn't going after the people who do make complete replacement kits (like Avatars of War or Mantic Games). Of course, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they did.

The problem with going after those guys is that the fantasy world is so vague and well travelled that anyone can produce an Orc or Dwarf. As can be seen by the hundreds of smaller vendours eeking out an existance. What is not so easy, and is the crux of the argument in this case, is setting stuff that is deliberately infringing on a specific universe - 40k, and the time that GW have spent building up their 'arena of future combat'. This is why for Sci Fi at least, there are so many universes and settings that don't cross over. Yes, there will be elements that you can recognise in some, but for the most part they are still separate.

What we are seeing here here is how the US legal system differs from the UK system, and how companies can come a (potential) cropper when dealing with (for them) relatively new rules of engagement. GW aren't the first and they won't be the last to have to deal with the US legal system ( remember BP? Hounded as a UK business during the crisis, even though it is mostly owned by american shareholders), the difference being that we have a stake in it (purchases/aesthetic/quality) and other companies too (outside companies eating into high profit lines - Marines/GRYMN etc). The net result of the action could have severe consequences for how the wargaming industry works, but probably not.

Alpharius wrote:Has there been any movement on the case, from either side?

Seems awfully quiet out there...

None past what I posted about the renewed motion to dismiss. Chapterhouse isn't required to answer the amended complaint until the 20th. Presumably, Games Workshop is responding to early discovery from Chapterhouse Studios, but there's no evidence of that at the moment. The only new update is that Paulson filed pro se appearance, meaning he's representing himself. I guess his motion for counsel was denied, which is to be expected given that this is civil litigation.

Weeble, I appreciate the extrapolation. I get the "Death from PowerPoint" glaze in my eyes from reading legalese and the translation is most welcome.

I'm shocked Paulson is still part of the suit----didn't they mistakenly name him as the sculptor of the "Spider Super Heavy That Would Look Good In Space Anime Armies ™". I thought they dropped the suit against him?

And what exactly do you mean "Motion for counsel"? You are only entitled such due course in a criminal case?

/Ignorant when it comes to the law
//I know how to pay speeding tickets though

AgeOfEgos wrote:...what exactly do you mean "Motion for counsel"? You are only entitled such due course in a criminal case?

You are entitled to counsel in criminal proceedings every time, no matter what, the state will appoint (and pay for) an attorney; you need but ask.
In civil cases it can be a bit more complicated; you have no absolute right to that, no (of course you can always hire counsel yourself!).

now first off: I'm a law student - of the Dutch persuasion, so I basically know very little about the US system (the above, I'm pretty sure is correct), and don't have the time to look it up for you, so I can sketch just about how we do it over here (and assume it will be largely similar on the other side of the big pond): there's a certain amount of money set aside to pay for counsel for those who cannot afford it, but do need legal assistance, in a civil case. now that budget is not limitless, so there are limits to eligibility: one's income can be considered, but the complexity of the case as well.

Simply stating to the court that you never sculpted that thing in the first place, which is easily corroborated, does not require an expensive lawyer; that money is better spent on a case which does need that assistance.
so yes, you're only entitled to that (in an absolute sense) in a criminal case.
maybe one of the US professionals could concisely explain (if and) how counsel could be provided in a civil case?

As to the case, now maybe I haven't read the complaint closely enough but there's one thing that surprises me: although GW goes so far as to claim a trademark on roman numerals, a chevron, the arrow (of law, or even a regular one) andsoforth, they don't really target the pre-heresy Mk.I Rhino conversion kit at all. Now if the Tervigon kit is a close call (I wouldn't feel comfortable about that down here for sure, for what I know...) the Rhino kit is worse. I have one lying in front of me still on sprue, one clipped out of sprue and partly fitted on a rhino, and a genuine Mk.I rhino right beside it. It's specifically meant to resemble GW IP (if outdated, very old IP) on purpose, as closely as possible. that's the one I'm most scared about... but I don't see them arguing that. have I missed anything?

(It'd make me very sad if they had to stop sales on that - enough for me to keep one here, on sprue, so if it ever becomes permanently unavaidable I can at least cast my own. it's quite a simple model actually, you could probably cast it with instant mold and greenstuff, then stick some plasticard cut parts on the back to keep it in place on the rhino. or just glue it on. nice stuff. of course I'd rather pay a fair price to the guys who make the sculpt and casts, but if that becomes impossible, at least I'll still be able to use that kit...)

This thread has made me place a substantial order, though I was informed that there is a 3week delay before the items are made and shipped.

@weeble1000,

I am making an assumption here that no-one will find out what discovery finalises until the actual court appearance in May. Is that the case?

Thanks

Andrew

That's my impression Andrew. Discovery is privileged, so there's no way to know what's going on with that at the moment. I expect that by the 20th we'll see a renewed motion to dismiss from Chapterhouse Studios. Assuming Games Workshop is answering Chapterhouse's interrogatories at the moment, my guess is that Chapterhouse will renew its motion to dismiss based on the answers that it receives from Games Workshop.

Judge Kennelly likely dismissed the renewed motion because he didn't feel there was enough information at hand to dismiss the case outright, so he essentially required Games Workshop to get specific about it's claims. If Games Workshop provides that specificity, it makes sense for Chapterhouse to make another motion to dismiss that Judge Kennelly would be in a position to make an informed decision about. If Games Workshop fails to adequately specify its claims, it's an obvious move to make another motion for dismissal. So, either way things fall, I think a third motion to dismiss is likely.

I don't know what's going on with early discovery, if anything, so there's no way to really guess about the likely content of a subsequent motion to dismiss or the Judge's reaction to it, other than to say that if Games Workshop fails to get specific, Judge Kennelly's treatment of the case thus far strongly suggests that he would dismiss the case. I expect some measure of specification from Games Workshop, but how much is anyone's guess at this point.

We'll see what develops next week.

Thank you weeble,

Now when do you think John Grisham will write for BL?....

Cheers

Andrew

He is too busy writing the new Codex Aetournium, which will replace the Inquistion, to be writing novels for BL, Andrew.

I have to admit, the suspense here is killing me!

OK, not really, but I am curious if anyone has any updates at all...

As of 8:00 a.m. CST, Pacer is not showing anything new, other than that Paulson is appearing pro se and that he has been issued a summons to file an answer to GW's complaint.

I have a question for our resident legal types; If a firm takes on a case pro bono as is the case here, are they somehow committed to see it through to resolution, or can they retract their goodwill whenever they see fit?

Alpharius wrote:I have to admit, the suspense here is killing me!

OK, not really, but I am curious if anyone has any updates at all...

im with you.
BTW, is there an 'end date' for when the new complaint has to be in for? (not sure that makes sense)

Tantras wrote:I have a question for our resident legal types; If a firm takes on a case pro bono as is the case here, are they somehow committed to see it through to resolution, or can they retract their goodwill whenever they see fit?

If a lawyer takes on a case pro bono they have the same ethical responsibilities as any paid lawyer as it relates to representing the client. You can't immediately drop out, and if you're in the middle of a trial, you usually have to petition the court to withdraw as counsel.

Ethical rules vary from one jurisdiction to another, so YMMV. But in general, no, they can't just drop out of the case.

biccat wrote:

Tantras wrote:I have a question for our resident legal types; If a firm takes on a case pro bono as is the case here, are they somehow committed to see it through to resolution, or can they retract their goodwill whenever they see fit?

If a lawyer takes on a case pro bono they have the same ethical responsibilities as any paid lawyer as it relates to representing the client. You can't immediately drop out, and if you're in the middle of a trial, you usually have to petition the court to withdraw as counsel.

Ethical rules vary from one jurisdiction to another, so YMMV. But in general, no, they can't just drop out of the case.

Thanks biccat, that's interesting. I assume it means that pro bono work is examined carefully before it is entered into, as the firm themselves are picking up the tab.

Just to be absolutely clear though, when you say ethical responsibilities, are we talking 'gentleman's understandings' of a non-legal nature? For instance, it would it merely be frowned upon to leave mid-case, or are we saying there are actually penalties and/or consequences for doing so?

Okay a follow on from that.

Lets say that CHS wins but GW has leave to appeal. Now CHC gets to reclaim their fees from GW, but would they then have to represent CHS at future court appearances? Or is their part finished?

Cheers

Andrew

Tantras wrote:Thanks biccat, that's interesting. I assume it means that pro bono work is examined carefully before it is entered into, as the firm themselves are picking up the tab.

Just to be absolutely clear though, when you say ethical responsibilities, are we talking 'gentleman's understandings' of a non-legal nature? For instance, it would it merely be frowned upon to leave mid-case, or are we saying there are actually penalties and/or consequences for doing so?

Ethics in the law are governed by individual jurisdictions, but a generally good reference is the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Failure to follow the rules can result in disciplinary action, which is generally administered by a commission on professional responsibility (made up of lawyers and maybe judges).

Discipline may be as light as a reprimand and as severe as disbarment, and anywhere in between. Disciplinary records in local bar publications are always an entertaining read, although they might be scary as well (for example, one attorney had his license suspended for 30 or 60 days for failing to confer with a client regarding an absurd settlement agreement that he knew his client would never accept).

AndrewC wrote:Okay a follow on from that.

Lets say that CHS wins but GW has leave to appeal. Now CHC gets to reclaim their fees from GW, but would they then have to represent CHS at future court appearances? Or is their part finished?

They don't have to represent CHS on appeal. In most cases, a client wouldn't retain the same attorney to represent them on appeal as represented them in the original case. Also, in the US appeal from a final lower court decision is taken as a right. Only appeal to the Supreme Court requires a writ of certiorari.

Now, that's assuming that CHS wins before GW appeals. I don't know if the pro-bono attorney would be required to represent CHS in a mid-trial appeal (which I can't remember the latin term for at the moment...), but those are fairly rare.

AndrewC wrote:Lets say that CHS wins but GW has leave to appeal. Now CHC gets to reclaim their fees from GW

Note that in the US legal system, in most circumstances, the prevailing party is not entitled to recover their legal fees from the losing party. That's a big difference from much of the rest of the world.

Tantras wrote:

biccat wrote:

Tantras wrote:I have a question for our resident legal types; If a firm takes on a case pro bono as is the case here, are they somehow committed to see it through to resolution, or can they retract their goodwill whenever they see fit?

If a lawyer takes on a case pro bono they have the same ethical responsibilities as any paid lawyer as it relates to representing the client. You can't immediately drop out, and if you're in the middle of a trial, you usually have to petition the court to withdraw as counsel.

Ethical rules vary from one jurisdiction to another, so YMMV. But in general, no, they can't just drop out of the case.

Thanks biccat, that's interesting. I assume it means that pro bono work is examined carefully before it is entered into, as the firm themselves are picking up the tab.

Just to be absolutely clear though, when you say ethical responsibilities, are we talking 'gentleman's understandings' of a non-legal nature? For instance, it would it merely be frowned upon to leave mid-case, or are we saying there are actually penalties and/or consequences for doing so?

Every practicing attorney in the U.S. (presumably) is a member of one or more state bar associations which have their own sets of rules of ethical and professional conduct. Violating these rules typically can amount to a slap on the wrist to disbarment. So, there could be potential penalties and consequences under State bars. Also, many specific courts have their own bars, and there could be penalties and consequences under that specific court or set of courts.

Most attorneys do not withdraw from cases mid-stream without a very good reason: either some very serious problems with the client, personal issues, or some other sort of hardship. Usually the judge has to agree. And too, there is an added wrinkle of whether a client is actually a client of the firm or of a specific attorney. Quite often, even if a speciifc attorney withdraws, a firm will continue representation. This is handled differently state to state as well as firm to firm.

For example, GW's lead counsel withdrew several weeks back because she left the firm; however, the firm continued to maintain representation of GW, and is presumably putting someone else forward to act as lead counsel.