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.

Gibbsey wrote:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason

But they all sell burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, fries, and soda.

Wow you missed that point.....

Nope.
But Burger King does sell a mufin breakfast sandwich.
Their commercials introducing it even showed "The king" breaking into McDonalds and stealing their "top secret" plans for the McMuffin.
Granted, they never NAMED the McMuffin as I recall, but they didn't need to.

So, yes. They DID blatantly copy something from someone else.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason

But they all sell burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, fries, and soda.

Wow you missed that point.....

Nope.
But Burger King does sell a mufin breakfast sandwich.
Their commercials introducing it even showed "The king" breaking into McDonalds and stealing their "top secret" plans for the McMuffin.
Granted, they never NAMED the McMuffin as I recall, but they didn't need to.

So, yes. They DID blatantly copy something from someone else.

Eric

Hmm...was there any legal reprecussions from BK stealing the McDonald's idea and making a commercial about it?

I know it was mentioned already, but I've always viewed Chapterhouse and other companies like them as nothing more than an aftermarket parts dealer. Ford doesn't sue the company that designed the replacement gas door cover on my Mustang who labeled it as "gas door cover for Ford Mustang", and I really don't get why GW feels the need to sue someone for labeling an aftermarket part Shoulder Pad for Warhammer 40k Space Marine.

Manchu wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:If you look at the comparative SW pieces, I think you'll see that there really is no copying there. is there similarity? Sure. That doesn't mean they're copies of GW iconography, just similar representations (in that they both use lupine images). The Salamanders iconography is closer to GW but, again, if you look at the 2 side by side, you'll see that they use their own imagery, and not GW's.

How close is too close?

I see a huge difference.
If all they've got to go on is a picture of a gator then, IMO, there's no case.
If, somehow, they got the rights to use ANY alligator to identify their brand, I'd sing a different tune. As they don't, however...


Eric

Alpharius wrote:Again,all of this is just in the initial stages - so really, pronouncements of guilt are more than a little premature.

There is no such thing as innocence... only degrees of guilt.

Mr Mystery wrote:I do wonder just how well people grasp the impact GW losing control of it's IP would be. ANYONE could produce ANYTHING using the names, themes, iconography etc of GW. We're talking films, computer games, table top games etc. This is why they have to come down hard on CH, whether you feel it's deserved or not. No company can ever afford to lose control of it's IP.

If it matters to anyone, I want to clarify something... I agree almost entirely with the above quote.
I've been staunchly defending CH in this thread. Some might say I've been a CH apologist , except that I'd defend anyone in their position.
My only disagreement is that they HAVE to come down hard on CH. That isn't entirely true (rom my laymans OPINION). They could broach the subject in a far less hostile manner. They (or their legal representatives) choose the "hard nose" approach.
I DO agree, though, that they have to defend their IP or lose it.

Though I understand what they're doing, I don't have to approve of their methods.

Mr Mystery wrote:Also, worth considering..GW are a lot more web savvy than you think. And all those posts on all those Forums...are still there. Bring those to the Court, and you have pretty much proven their intent to trade off of GW's IP without permission, leaving CH on an exceptionally sticky wicket.

CH has far more posts covering their butts, I'd wager, than they do that are detrimental to them. Taking the lot as a whole, I doubt it would be as damning as you think.

Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hmm...was there any legal reprecussions from BK stealing the McDonald's idea and making a commercial about it?

Not that I know of.
That commercial played for a LONG time and, last I looked (granted, it's been some MONTHS), BK was still selling that sandwich.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason

But they all sell burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, fries, and soda.

Wow you missed that point.....

Nope.
But Burger King does sell a mufin breakfast sandwich.
Their commercials introducing it even showed "The king" breaking into McDonalds and stealing their "top secret" plans for the McMuffin.
Granted, they never NAMED the McMuffin as I recall, but they didn't need to.

So, yes. They DID blatantly copy something from someone else.

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:they never NAMED the McMuffin

Gibbsey wrote:Wow you missed that point.....

MagickalMemories wrote:CH has far more posts covering their butts, I'd wager, than they do that are detrimental to them. Taking the lot as a whole, I doubt it would be as damning as you think.

Eric

Hmm...was there any legal reprecussions from BK stealing the McDonald's idea and making a commercial about it?

Not that I know of.
That commercial played for a LONG time and, last I looked (granted, it's been some MONTHS), BK was still selling that sandwich.

Eric

On your first point, it only takes one bad post to ruin them, regardless of how many "good" posts they have.

And on the second point, BK would have a had legal team through the whole process of concept to airing the commercial, ensuring that it was legally sound, otherwise the otherside of the board's legal team would have to shut down.

Gibbsey wrote:

dietrich wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:Wendy's and Burger king dont sell McDoubles's for a reason

But they all sell burgers, chicken sandwiches, salads, fries, and soda.

Wow you missed that point.....

Are all double cheeseburgers McDoubles? Does someone market, "our burgers are just like a McDouble"? No, it's about offering choices and variety. Could McDonald's complain if I took my McDouble home and put bbq sauce on it?

That's an extreme example, and not all that applicable. This is IP law, which is a lot more grey than most things, because it deals with something that isn't concrete.

I want GW to stick around, and I want to see them turn a reasonable profit. If they don't, the company goes under. I also think that competition and variety is good for any industry. I hope CH comes out of the lawsuit ok, because I want to see them and other vendors continue to put out products, which in general, fill holes in the GW line. If GW made Soul Drinker shoulder pads, would anyone make chalice shoulder pads? Does GW make variant ork heads for Blood Axes or Pirates?

Mr Mystery wrote:Oh dear...

IP deary...IP....

Seems CH have a rather communist approach to other peoples intellectual property. And indeed their trademarks. So why all this mindless bandying of freemarket I don't know.

Was that directed at me?

Whenever I start to imagine I learned nothing in law school and that basically anyone could be a lawyer, one of these threads comes around and I feel a lot better.

Manchu wrote:Whenever I start to imagine I learned nothing in law school and that basically anyone could be a lawyer, one of these threads comes around and I feel a lot better.

QFT...

I posed a musing about jurisdictional and venue issues several pages back. I'm wondering if Paulson is not involved in CHS, as he claimed earlier in this thread (IIRC), and GW is using his residency to attach personal jurisdiction to get this into court in IL, I'm not sure there is enough contact to maintain the venue there. Although to be fair, I am a little rusty on my Civ Pro rules as I haven't looked at them in 14-15 years; and have no idea how the courts treat internet sales, etc., in that argument.

When it's this: ChapterHouse
vs this: ForgeWorld

There could be some issues.

Outside of both looking like dragon heads on a door, they're pretty distinct. Go to any toy store and find the knock off GI Joes- they look more similar to the real thing than CH does to FW's stuff.

Polonius wrote:Outside of both looking like dragon heads on a door, they're pretty distinct. Go to any toy store and find the knock off GI Joes- they look more similar to the real thing than CH does to FW's stuff.

agreed, i do hope chapterhouse wins this cus if they don't i'll sell my soul to the devil himself to see GW brought down for simply destroying the modeling aspect of the hobby

dietrich wrote:

theharrower wrote:GW's lawyers are going to show a bunch of pictures to the jury that show Chapterhouse's bitz next to Games Workshop's bitz.

It's highly unlikely this gets to a jury trial. Most likely, they settle out of court. GW may not even intend to take it to trial.

Do you even have a jury in a civil case like this in the US?

After reading that Torah of text (which has been very interesting), I'm surprised that not one person has mentioned what to me, is the most analogous precedent in relation to this situation.
The Atari debacle of the 80's...
I know I'm dating myself here, but long story short...
Atari developed a home video game console, the dominant in the market. Some small upstarts like the newly formed "Activision" began to develop, and manufacture games for this popular console. Atari took them to court (I don't admittedly know what happened...I was eight, and I'm giving the abridged version). After all, what right did these guys have to develop a product on the backs of Atari's hard work, and product? Atari lost...and what happened? Every "Tom, Dick, and Harry" started making crap games to cash in on this silicon "gold rush"...soon the marketplace was saturated with "pants" games. Consumer faith in the quality of the product was dented severely, and the video game market crashed, and took Atari with it.
But for the Yin, now the Yang...
For years the videogame industry languished..then a silly Japanese company, Nintendo, developed a console, and an idea.They developed the hardware, a majority of software, and "licensed" the rights to develop titles under their strict supervision, and quality control. Everyone was happy...yet what did it yield? An industry full of competitiveness, and creativity we see today in said industry.
Mind, I'm interested to see where this all goes between CH and GW, I don't have a particular opinion. I find these parallels pretty historically striking, and I'm curious how this will all go down in our modern era given the clout corporations have. The point I was loosely trying to make is that whatever the outcome, and it may blow up in our face, however, the nature of our hobby will survive, adapt, and change. It's something GW would do right by learning.
/rant

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dietrich wrote:

theharrower wrote:GW's lawyers are going to show a bunch of pictures to the jury that show Chapterhouse's bitz next to Games Workshop's bitz.

It's highly unlikely this gets to a jury trial. Most likely, they settle out of court. GW may not even intend to take it to trial.

Do you even have a jury in a civil case like this in the US?

You can, if either party requests one; GW did so in their complaint.

It would be interesting to see a straight up POLL for this forum, those in favour of CH winning and thoe in favour of GW winning, straight numbers always tell a tale.

The interesting thing for me, as a dire hard GW NON supporter, are the people that want to see CH win. Have you given it any thought to the effect that would have on your beloved GW and the products and games you love?

Think about it, the biggest threat to innovation (and in this case, I don't use the term with tongue in cheek reference to GW) is a lack of protection for that creavity.

Take a look at the anti copyright situation with China, and the damage copying has done to certain industries, like the Garage Kit industry, and Statue industry.....now, I'm not saying that CH has directly copied GW, but its clear that they have rode off their ideas and success.

If CH win, it will set a precident, and all those companies that have been holding back and being discrete will simply explode in a rush to tear strips from the carcass....it could be the beginning of the end for creative companies especially GW.

On the positive side, look at companies like Mirco Art and Scibor, that started off riding on GW I.P., after being forced to go down thier own path, they both appear to be doing well, MicroArt landed the Disc World miniatures range, and Scibor seems to be doing fine with his own creations.....if they can do it, why can't CH? If its an honest company basedon decent principles it should have no problem....right?

Delephont wrote:The interesting thing for me, as a dire hard GW NON supporter, are the people that want to see CH win. Have you given it any thought to the effect that would have on your beloved GW and the products and games you love?

Think about it, the biggest threat to innovation (and in this case, I don't use the term with tongue in cheek reference to GW) is a lack of protection for that creavity.

You are unlikely to find a more vehement supporter of intellectual property laws on this forum than myself; IP law pays my bills, as well as providing endless hours of entertainment in the form of Dakka threads. But attempts to sum up this situation as "CH should win" or "GW should win" are vast oversimplifications. There's not a single win/lose proposition here - it's literally hundreds of decisions to be reached ("Does this item infringe? Does the marketing/name for this item infringe? Are the pictures used for this item a misrepresentation?") across every item in CH's catalog.

Take a look at the anti copyright situation with China, and the damage copying has done to certain industries, like the Garage Kit industry, and Statue industry.....now, I'm not saying that CH has directly copied GW, but its clear that they have rode off their ideas and success.

If CH win, it will set a precident, and all those companies that have been holding back and being discrete will simply explode in a rush to tear strips from the carcass....it could be the beginning of the end for creative companies especially GW.

My wife does garage kits; the situations aren't anything like parallel, as nearly all of the Asian recasting of original models is obviously done in breach of copyright laws in just about every country that has modern copyright laws. There is no danger of a precedent being set by this case that would allow for complete recasting of a copyrighted work without the owner's consent.

The sky is not falling. Many different industries have dealt successfully with after-market and non-OEM replacement parts over the years. If the case makes it that far, it will be interesting to see what a judge does with the (potentially) novel legal question; I'm just sorry that the cost to CH is going to be so high, irrespective of the outcome (if any).

Disagree with your prognosis Delephont.
There may well be a "gold rush" as Deadlyfungi also suggested.
However the core business of producing and developing the game would still firmly be with GW.

The problem with the Atari analogy is that there were not only competing systems iirc such as Commadore, and development of ever better systems. There were other factors other than the flood of naff games causing Atari's demise.
There are plenty of similarly poor games for all platforms afaik, yet Xbox PS3 et al all seem to flourish

Chaos0xomega
That pretty much has it. Not sure if licencing would be necessary and the cost may prove too prohibitive for the cottage industries. But that may be a point to discuss elsewhere.

It would be interesting to see if GW's trading practices could be challenged as contrary to free trade.

I love it, the world over there are companies making "accessories" for millions of products, basically because there is a market for them. I would imagine that a lot of people on this board have bought such items, which is why I am at a loss as to why they are now treating CH as some sort of theiving scum.

Janthkin wrote:
You are unlikely to find a more vehement supporter of intellectual property laws on this forum than myself; IP law pays my bills, as well as providing endless hours of entertainment in the form of Dakka threads. But attempts to sum up this situation as "CH should win" or "GW should win" are vast oversimplifications. There's not a single win/lose proposition here - it's literally hundreds of decisions to be reached ("Does this item infringe? Does the marketing/name for this item infringe? Are the pictures used for this item a misrepresentation?") across every item in CH's catalog.

My wife does garage kits; the situations aren't anything like parallel, as nearly all of the Asian recasting of original models is obviously done in breach of copyright laws in just about every country that has modern copyright laws. There is no danger of a precedent being set by this case that would allow for complete recasting of a copyrighted work without the owner's consent.

The sky is not falling. Many different industries have dealt successfully with after-market and non-OEM replacement parts over the years. If the case makes it that far, it will be interesting to see what a judge does with the (potentially) novel legal question; I'm just sorry that the cost to CH is going to be so high, irrespective of the outcome (if any).

You've completely missed my points.

I stated clearly that the situation with China and the Garage kit industry isn't the same, because CH hasn't directly copied a GW piece, the point I was making, is that if GW don't win the case, and companies are then allowed to use their I.P., how close to the actual products GW make do you think other "second tier" companies will come? Even now we see companies making "generic" Space Knights, that are laughably close to Space Marines that GW could have produced said miniatures themselves....you know what I mean!

The idea of a POLL, is simple, how could you misunderstand that point? People on this site are clearly either for CH winning or against. The finer points you're talking about have absolutely no bearing on peoples opinion of how they would like this scenario to play out. Of course its an over simplification, but hell, the last 15 pages of this thread have been exactly about that "simplification". The POLL would simply give someone a one hit look at the mood of the forum and where people allocate their support...simple.

And finally, I agree, I don't suppose CH winning would put GW out of business tommorrow or even next year, however, it would have an effect. Put it this way, if CH won, and started making particular items, especially if those items were key to the WH40K universe....lets say, they started making Horus Heresy Primarchs, or better still, lets say they had been first with Heresy MK Power Armour.....lets say, they had the products running for a couple of years.....thats now a whole area of miniature making that GW would have to steer clear of. Otherwise they themselves would be in breach of copyright, correct?....now, you could say, well, whatever GW brings out would be official, and therefore, would over-write what ever had been made by a second tier company.....maybe, but if everyone has invested in the CH version, would they be inclined to simply throw it on the junk pile just because GW is now producing something along the same lines? I doubt it....and even if, generally, people would be willing to do that, they'd only do it if GW produced the item at a considerably higher quality.....

In this sense, GW would be fighting competition within their own I.P. setting? What company would want that, and for how long could they reasonably survive if that were the status quo?

I'm not sure how people are interprating 'free trade' here. There are many companies whose names crop up time and again, like Scibor etc who are following the free trade path as I see it. The produce items that are similar, and could be used in GW games (outside of the stores/GW tourneys, but that's a given) but have nothing to do with the GW artwork in particular.

They also don't go down the road of actively advertising that they are for whatever GW equivilant, for example shoulder pads. The bits they make are implied to fit indirectly.

As I see it, this whole cry of 'its a monopoly!' is false as well, yes GW does have a monopoly, but only on the grimdark future of the 40k universe in this case. There are plenty of other games that use miniatures to represent stuff happening in a Sci Fi setting.

Finally, if you were alowed to do just what you wanted because you could, why bother with licencing laws? There would be no need because anyone who had the capability can knock out whatever they feel like out. Just to track onto the Star Wars junket, Star Trek is very similar to that in the same way that Infinity is to 40K. How many good knock off toy manufacturers get away with producing Mileenium Falchions (meant to misspell) before Lucas steps in and applies the boot?

These are my own thoughts, and are only intended to induce more discussion

Captain

You are of course correct in the assertrion that the monopoly is with the games created by GW.
I think this in part leads to some misunderstandings.

No one surely is suggesting that GW games can be freely copied and marketed. Scribor make shoulder pads and we all know what they are for. They are not 28mm Joan Collins accessories

It is no big deal if CH say these shoulder pads are for SM's imho. We all know that. By preventing companies making accessories then GW are in my book attempting to stifle free trade and enforce a strngle hold.

The licencing that you refer to is somewhat different and afaik reputable toy manufacturers and model companies are strictly bound by licences which are apparently prohibitive, even for major companies.

Airfix have a deal with the Royal Navy, but that does not prevent Dragon from producing kits of the Type 45 Daring Class destroyer.

I don't think that a dilution of IP is always the disaster that some people seem to fear, here.

In 1968, George Romero made Night of the Living Dead. That movie basically invented the contemporary concept of the Zombie -- an undead, cannibalistic, shambling, rotting, mindless critter that wants to eat brains (there had been earlier zombie movies, but they'd focused on the more traditional Caribbean zombi).

Did he aggressively pursue the various film-makers, novelists, game designers (including GW, naturally!) et al who basically lifted his Zombie concept wholesale? No. Did that hurt the profits on his later Zombie movies, or hurt his reputation, or confuse the public into thinking they were getting genuine Romero when they went to see Shaun of the Dead? No, it doesn't seem to have done... if anything, his personal "brand" is stronger than ever, because he's recognised by enthusiasts as the original, the grandfather of the genre. And the genre -- the genre is stronger than ever, too! As a DIRECT result of the relative lack of control he exerted over his IP, we have a huge number of awesome games, movies, and books about zombies. There are occasional crappy ones, too, but the market kills those ones; no-one had to sue them.

As has been pointed out time and again, GW's IP is and always has been utterly derivative of all kinds of sources... I love that, personally. A lot of contemporary art in all kinds of fields is based on mash-ups and sampling and detourning and repurposing.

In my opinion, it'd be incredibly positive for "the hobby" if we had dozens of manufacturers of both miniatures and variant rule-sets. The awesome ones would flourish (which does mean that GW would always be successful; they do still make the best toy soldiers in the world, whatever other flaws they might have); the crappy ones would go under.

Night of the Living Dead is a funny one because it entered the public domain after the distributor neglected to put a copyright indicator on the prints, which is why it's freely or very cheaply available. Not that it has much relevance, I just thought it was interesting.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Captain

You are of course correct in the assertrion that the monopoly is with the games created by GW.
I think this in part leads to some misunderstandings.

No one surely is suggesting that GW games can be freely copied and marketed. Scribor make shoulder pads and we all know what they are for. They are not 28mm Joan Collins accessories

It is no big deal if CH say these shoulder pads are for SM's imho. We all know that. By preventing companies making accessories then GW are in my book attempting to stifle free trade and enforce a strngle hold.

What? Of course its a big deal. GW isn't saying that a company can't produce shoulder pads, or any other item for fitting to miniatures, I believe GW only has issues with companies using its trademarked names and I.P to induce advertising benefits. If a company says its making generic shoulder pads, it will get substantially less hits on an internet search then a company that states clearly it is making bits for WH40K and Space Marines.

How can you not see that point? It has nothing to do with free trade? Stifling Free Trade would be GW attempting to shut down any company making a Sci Fi game of any type....or trying to prevent any other company producing a Fantasy Game that uses Orcs, or Eleves, or Dwarfs etc....which is clearly not what they're trying to do.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:
There may well be a "gold rush" as Deadlyfungi also suggested.
However the core business of producing and developing the game would still firmly be with GW.

The problem with the Atari analogy is that there were not only competing systems iirc such as Commadore, and development of ever better systems. There were other factors other than the flood of naff games causing Atari's demise.
There are plenty of similarly poor games for all platforms afaik, yet Xbox PS3 et al all seem to flourish

Agreed...
What I was insinuating is that GW needs to depart from their "cartel" style control of the hobby. Yes, they created the wave, managed it, and have done a damn good job with it. I really love GW, however, they need to realize their "choke hold" will end sometime. They sell the "crack", and they know it...however, for all anything is, it's playtest runs short in real life...
In a system where a company actively encourages creativity, in a niche market based on such...yet, turn around and effectively tell us, the consumer, that "all your minis are belong to us!" is silly. They're effectively denying themselves a rather strong piece of the market, with one hand encouraging something that could increase their market share, exposure, and profitability. And with the other hand damning it. ( I found the one particular post about Legos rather interesting)...
The Atari analogy is quite apt. GW, much like Atari, is/was the market leader. As well, GW, much like Atari, had/has other competitors as well, Mantic, Warmachine, etc.. I loved my Commodore 64, but the truth remains, when the floodgates opened...the Atari was the gateway, and all systems were brought down. The only better system was the developing Apple, and the IBM...no games. You're likely correct, as well, in that there was another factor in Atari's demise other than the naff games...cocaine (Nolan Bushnell himself admitted as such, those were the times..)...which, if I read these forums correctly, is what every GW staffer, and corporate boss is on.
I believe that GW is living in ignorance. They've built an empire, and rightly so....it's awesome! However, for all their efforts to make this hobby popular they forgot one thing...eventually the fans will take it over, or at the very least have some "push" (example may of the sites of this nature). It's an inevitability. They have control, yet they need to realize that they're not the only ones on the beach...and much like you stated in regards to the Xbox, and PS3, there are the ideas(titles) that sink, and the ones that swim. Either way, the makers of the platform win...
I'm not saying that GW shouldn't pursue protecting their IP, quite the opposite. As stated, they've done a good job with it that's kept me interested for the last twenty years, and I can understand where they'd want to protect that. I just think they need to open their eyes a bit..

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:It is no big deal if CH say these shoulder pads are for SM's imho. We all know that. By preventing companies making accessories then GW are in my book attempting to stifle free trade and enforce a strngle hold.

The licencing that you refer to is somewhat different and afaik reputable toy manufacturers and model companies are strictly bound by licences which are apparently prohibitive, even for major companies.

You're missing the point I'm making. The companies that get pinged in these cases are the lazy ones who hang onto the coat tails of GW and don't produce thier own original content. Just because GW doesn't make a shoulder pad for X doesn't make it ok for someone else to start selling them. Also just because licences are expensive doesn't mean that it's again ok to just make whatever you like.

Another analagy: If someone is walking behind you, you don't notice. However if a misstep is taken and they stand on your heel, you're going to be annoyed. The point I'm making is that there is a myriad of potential for Sci Fi games, as proven by Infinity and the like without ripping the ideas from someone else, and making money from it without some sort of compensation paid.

My thoughts for discussion