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.

agnosto wrote:I would think that the unclean hands thing and the claiming copyright for things it doesn't own is related to such things as the chaos star and claiming copyright on chevrons and roman numerals which have been public domain for more than 1000 years now... They, GW, also tend to toe the fair use line as well with such characters as Kruela de evil (or however it's spelled) and we all know what the name is actually supposed to be.

I wonder if they intend to serve a C&D on the Catholic church for using latin.

Reminds me of this;

http://www.theonion.com/articles/microsoft-patents-ones-zeroes,599/

"We will vigorously enforce our patents of these numbers, as they are legally ours," Gates said. "Among Microsoft's vast historical archives are Sanskrit cuneiform tablets from 1800 B.C. clearly showing ones and a symbol known as 'sunya,' or nothing. We also own: papyrus scrolls written by Pythagoras himself in which he explains the idea of singular notation, or 'one'; early tracts by Mohammed ibn Musa al Kwarizimi explaining the concept of al-sifr, or 'the cipher'; original mathematical manuscripts by Heisenberg, Einstein and Planck; and a signed first-edition copy of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being And Nothingness. Should the need arise, Microsoft will have no difficulty proving to the Justice Department or anyone else that we own the rights to these numbers."

Enlarge ImageGates explains the new patent to Apple Computer's board of directors.

Added Gates: "My salary also has lots of zeroes. I'm the richest man in the world."



The Onion has its moments.

Ok, this link I'm about to post is not directly related to this GW vs CHS case. The only reason I'm posting it is because I think it does have an interesting tangential relationship.

Mattel sued the makers of the Bratz dolls over a variety of IP issues. Mattel is the big boy on the block in the doll industry. Mattel has lost the case, and the jury deemed the actions Mattel took in filing the suit to be malicious in nature. Check out the size of the jury award and the potential size of the punitive award that the judge could impose upon Mattel.

I think it's possible that CHS might be able to use this type of thing as a precedent in their claims against GW if CHS decides to pursue a malicious litigation route.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jury-rejects-Mattels-Bratz-apf-3344046520.html?x=0

I repeat: I am aware that this case doesn't relate directly to the GW vs CHS case; I'm merely bringing it up to show how the small defendant can get an absolutely massive win against the giant corporation.

Saldiven wrote:Ok, this link I'm about to post is not directly related to this GW vs CHS case. The only reason I'm posting it is because I think it does have an interesting tangential relationship.

Mattel sued the makers of the Bratz dolls over a variety of IP issues. Mattel is the big boy on the block in the doll industry. Mattel has lost the case, and the jury deemed the actions Mattel took in filing the suit to be malicious in nature. Check out the size of the jury award and the potential size of the punitive award that the judge could impose upon Mattel.

I think it's possible that CHS might be able to use this type of thing as a precedent in their claims against GW if CHS decides to pursue a malicious litigation route.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jury-rejects-Mattels-Bratz-apf-3344046520.html?x=0

I repeat: I am aware that this case doesn't relate directly to the GW vs CHS case; I'm merely bringing it up to show how the small defendant can get an absolutely massive win against the giant corporation.

I'm honestly not seeing the correlation.

After reading through, the whole crux of the matter is that the Bratz designer worked for Mattel when he came up with the idea and that MGA 'interfered' with contractual obligations.

There's one bit from there that raises a "Seriously? The judge let this happen?" flag.

Mattel attorneys blamed Larian for poisoning the jury with his testimony, including statements he made that Mattel's lawsuit caused the stress that killed his father, and that doll designer Bryant had a stroke after a day of grueling testimony. That kind of testimony was not allowed in the 2008 trial, they said, and Mattel prevailed.

Can any of the lawyers explain why that would have been allowed this time, but not in the 2008 trial?

A lot of us have talked about GW playing the part of the bully here. Since Chapterhouse is so small that they really can't afford to go to court themselves, it looks a lot like GW is trying to put them out of business by making them pay legal fees. In the US, both sides in a case have to pay their own way (you can sue for court fees if you won your case).

Using the court system's cost to bully other companies can be unethical- especially if they show up with no plausible case whatsoever. Punitive damages are designed to punish corporations for doing things that are unethical. CHS would have to sue for punitive damages here (and so far they haven't) but it is a possibility.

They are based on the size of the corporation being punished (not the plaintiff). So, when McDonalds has to pay punitive damages, they're always huge sums, but when your local grocer has the same problem, it isn't all that much.

Since Mattel is a larger corporation than Games Workshop, the sum can't get as high in this case. Punitive damages can be enormous sums, but they'll never be so much that a corporation cannot pay them.

Kanluwen wrote:I'm honestly not seeing the correlation.

After reading through, the whole crux of the matter is that the Bratz designer worked for Mattel when he came up with the idea and that MGA 'interfered' with contractual obligations.

Could be based on the damage to the company ($800M to $50M in gross sales) for the lawsuit. But it also appears that Mattel engaged in some shenanigans of their own.

You're right, it's probably not relevant, unless GW actually infringed some of CHS's copyrights.

Kanluwen wrote:There's one bit from there that raises a "Seriously? The judge let this happen?" flag.

Mattel attorneys blamed Larian for poisoning the jury with his testimony, including statements he made that Mattel's lawsuit caused the stress that killed his father, and that doll designer Bryant had a stroke after a day of grueling testimony. That kind of testimony was not allowed in the 2008 trial, they said, and Mattel prevailed.

Can any of the lawyers explain why that would have been allowed this time, but not in the 2008 trial?

Looks like Mattel would have objected to this on the grounds that it isn't relevant - specifically that the prejudicial nature of the testimony would outweigh its probative value. Such a decision is a judgment call on the part of the judge, and the judge probably went the other way this time around (the case was decided then appealed to the 9th circuit who reversed for a new trial).

Also, if MGA had alleged (this time through) loss of business or other damages for Mattel's malicious suit, this information may be relevant this time around, even if it wasn't relevant as to the copyright infringement claim before.

So, the discovery period is now over and CHS/W&S feel they have enough evidence of 'bad faith' to drag GW through the court process. Why do I have a vision of "The Rainmaker" going through my head. (For non Grisham fans, its a sole laywer suing the insurance industry)

I very much doubt that the "bright spark" at GW who started all this though that this would happen.

One thing I did notice in the opinions elsewhere is that this judgement will only affect the US, not the UK. So that means we still get overpriced plastic with no, local, third party service.

Cheers

Andrew

If GW should lose big time it would probably discourage them from taking a similar suit against a UK based company.

The judge in such a case would be within his rights to have regard to the US court decision. He might consider it a waste of time to rehash arguments concerning trademarks which had already been fully ventilated in the US court.

If GW loses, they will be drowned in Space Marine sales for all those custom shoulder pads, tough luck

Kirasu wrote:Sucks how the usual anti-bullying tactic of "punch him in the mouth" doesnt work when the bully is an abrams tank and you're a guy with only your fists

Doesnt the UK have anti-bullying laws??! Just claim each of these small companies is one of the precious snowflakes that needs protection

Tiannamen Square 1989 says otherwise.

One man with a hankerchief held up three battletanks of the People's Army.

Sometimes you just have to have guts.


Maybe they'll think twice before going after fan-based websites now. You cannot talk about something without using its name.

xraytango wrote:One man with a hankerchief held up three battletanks of the People's Army.

I know that this is off topic, but I wonder what ever happened to him?

Andrew

The discovery period is not over yet. I think discovery is everything between pleading and trial. Judge Kennelly required Games Workshop to respond to early discover, as in discovery prior to pleading. This is normally not allowed.

AndrewC wrote:

xraytango wrote:One man with a hankerchief held up three battletanks of the People's Army.

I know that this is off topic, but I wonder what ever happened to him?

Andrew

Sadly, many contend he was shot a couple weeks after.

Regardless, I hope CHS wins---but one small financial institution---fighting a larger financial institution over profits <> the Tank Man.

/It was 4 tanks

Parts and conversion bits are one thing, but given that CH appear to have now moved into just making full and complete GW models, methinks that at least in part GW might yet pull back a win.

Why do people think chapterhouse is "ahead" as far as the legal proceedings go? Can someone give me an abridged version, I'm curious but I'd rather not wade through 17 pages...

Basically, GW is trying to keep their claims as broad as possible, and in doing so are hurting their case. As far as I understand, copyright lawsuits need to be very very specific as to exactly what is being infringed, but GW isn't getting to the needed level of specificity. Even with quite specific claims, CHS seems to be in a defendable position.
Furthermore... GW needs to end this as quick as they can, because they're paying. CHS isn't, so they can keep going as long as they want.

This is all great publicity for CHS. I wonder if I could persuade GW to sue Precinct Omega?

R.

I wonder if CH's expansion into the market of writing official fan-fiction to sell models changes anything... Fanfiction is always illegal but often ignored, but when it is used to sell a model as an official GW character in the GW universe using GW imagery and IP to sell it, this seems like the very thing GW is trying to prove is now all wrapped up into one brand new product.

RiTides wrote:Why do people think chapterhouse is "ahead" as far as the legal proceedings go? Can someone give me an abridged version, I'm curious but I'd rather not wade through 17 pages...

Its as Travsi said, but further- the judge, showing his dipleasure, forced GW to disclose first, which as some of the lawyers in the thread points out is not in GW's favor.

Trasvi wrote:Furthermore... GW needs to end this as quick as they can, because they're paying. CHS isn't, so they can keep going as long as they want.

Why is GW paying but not Chapterhouse? Both sides have to pay their legal expenses, right?

RiTides wrote:Why is GW paying but not Chapterhouse? Both sides have to pay their legal expenses, right?

CH's lawyers are pro bono, GW isn't so lucky.

CH have got someone Pro Bono (free) for whatever reason.

I do not think that GW will be ruing the fact that they are paying for their defence. Hard to believe that they would start something and not either know or afford where it is going.

I appreciate allot of people contend that GW are stupid, have a poor business model, etc, but they are a reasonable well regarded company that has be trading well in poor market conditions. Knowing that they may have to follow through with a court case that they started will not come as a surprise to them.

I look forward to further developments.

Kirbinator wrote:

RiTides wrote:Why is GW paying but not Chapterhouse? Both sides have to pay their legal expenses, right?

CH's lawyers are pro bono, GW isn't so lucky.

Lucky?) I'd much rather pick my lawyer than take what I can get for free.

notprop wrote:
I do not think that GW will be ruing the fact that they are paying for their defence. Hard to believe that they would start something and not either know or afford where it is going.

While I agree they can afford it, its looking more and more like they thought they were the 800 pound gorilla in this case with lawyers, going up against some poor schmuck....And turns out that their growl and take'em to court isnt working so well when CHS had found their own gorilla to match up with. So far, it looks like a big miscalculation on GW part, their case was much more scare tactics then substance. Thats not to say that GW's case might not have merit, however at this stage I think they were more saber rattling then actual case.

I appreciate allot of people contend that GW are stupid, have a poor business model, etc, but they are a reasonable well regarded company that has be trading well in poor market conditions. Knowing that they may have to follow through with a court case that they started will not come as a surprise to them.

Given how the judge has ruled so far, I think it has come to more then a bit of a suprise to GW and lawyers that they actually have to have a case instead of scaring some small time company.

I look forward to further developments.

Same here.

mikhaila wrote:

Kirbinator wrote:

RiTides wrote:Why is GW paying but not Chapterhouse? Both sides have to pay their legal expenses, right?

CH's lawyers are pro bono, GW isn't so lucky.

Lucky?) I'd much rather pick my lawyer than take what I can get for free.

Go back a few pages, the firm that is representing CH is very reputable with several experts in the field; in fact their primary counsel is well published on similar matters. As has been put forth in this thread, the firm is probably pushing to set a precedent which is why they took the case.

nkelsch wrote:I wonder if CH's expansion into the market of writing official fan-fiction to sell models changes anything... Fanfiction is always illegal but often ignored, but when it is used to sell a model as an official GW character in the GW universe using GW imagery and IP to sell it, this seems like the very thing GW is trying to prove is now all wrapped up into one brand new product.

I'm sure that CH would not have released their new product, without first consulting with their Lawyers. So, it's a safe bet that it will not be an issue.

Sasori wrote:

nkelsch wrote:I wonder if CH's expansion into the market of writing official fan-fiction to sell models changes anything... Fanfiction is always illegal but often ignored, but when it is used to sell a model as an official GW character in the GW universe using GW imagery and IP to sell it, this seems like the very thing GW is trying to prove is now all wrapped up into one brand new product.

I'm sure that CH would not have released their new product, without first consulting with their Lawyers. So, it's a safe bet that it will not be an issue.

I would hope so. If they didn't, I have a feeling their lawyers may be having a heated discussion with them shortly....

Unfortunately, it's a problem with US copyright law that it's not always a good idea to consult with an attorney before engaging in potentially infringing activities.

Without asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"

With asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"
J "If you didn't think it was infringing, why did you go to your lawyer"
D "Um...."

They should have been more generic. But they decided to be ballsy.. so I await the outcome. If GW win the case they will be 'crushing the little guy' so it will be negative PR, (just when we thought GW could sink no lower!) If they loose I think we will need clearer guide lines as to what is permissable.

Errr....how would the Judge know precisely what was discussed at the Lawyers Office? Do they record all legal counsel or something?

Over here, I'm pretty sure you just ring your lawyer, and say you want to talk about something, he says, 'Ooookay, that'll be £345756 an hour', and he tells you what he thinks about the affair from behind his desk. The Judge has no way of knowing the contents of all the legal counsel you've had.

biccat wrote:Unfortunately, it's a problem with US copyright law that it's not always a good idea to consult with an attorney before engaging in potentially infringing activities.

Without asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"

With asking your lawyer:
D "Your honor, we honestly never thought that what we did was infringing"
J "If you didn't think it was infringing, why did you go to your lawyer"
D "Um...."

Isn't stuff like that covered by Attorney-client privilege?

I don't understand how a Judge could find out.