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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Chapterhouse wrote:For those who swore up and down that GW was going to shut us down, bury us in legal fees and we had no chance to win since we were obviously in the wrong... I think the attorneys thought this was a slam-dunk case for Games Workshop and we had no legal ground to stand on that there would be little chance for us to find such an outstanding firm to help us.

That's fantastic. Now stop talking. The worst thing you can do now is to run around the various big GW sites mouthing off. Any lawyer worth their salt should be telling you to keep your trap shut and let all official statements come from them, and not from you.

Agreed...+6 now...

Good luck - I hope it all turns out well for you, for your and the hobby's sake...and because it might just shut up some of the rampant GW apologists (no names mentioned, note) who seem to have a bent against you.

Oh, who am I kidding, they'd just start whinging about how "poor GW was robbed..."

Padre.

Best of luck (but not too much luck - don't spank GW so hard they go bankrupt ).

So now that you have a lawyer doing your defence for free are you going to start refunding the donations people have made to help defend your company?

paulson games wrote:So now that you have a lawyer doing your defence for free are you going to start refunding the donations people have made to help defend your company?

LOL, no way...

+7 stop talking, that way I don't have to listen to your drivel.

The next thing I want to hear is the ruling, until then... NOT INTERESTED, and to all the lovers and haters - MEH, can we have some new ground if there is going to be some discussion, this thread has pretty much already started off where the last one (almost) finished

Chapterhouse wrote:
For those who swore up and down that GW was going to shut us down, bury us in legal fees and we had no chance to win since we were obviously in the wrong... I think the attorneys thought this was a slam-dunk case for Games Workshop and we had no legal ground to stand on that there would be little chance for us to find such an outstanding firm to help us.

This statement is setting you up for a nice big crash and burn.

Your overconfidence is your weakness....

paulson games wrote:So now that you have a lawyer doing your defence for free are you going to start refunding the donations people have made to help defend your company?

+1

I hope GW loses so they're forced to MAYBE produce kits people want.. under threat of someone else doing it for us

There is no real excuse for lack of thunderwolves, warlock on jetbike conversions or like half the stuff in the nid book. Anyway good luck

nkelsch wrote:Oh, I know most law firms require it and many firms use Pro Bono as a way fo giving inexperienced lawyers experience on larger and different cases as well as advertisement for the firm to say they do 'good things'. It is funny but charitable pro bono work increases profits for a lawfirm, studies have shown the charity work generates more business!

malfred wrote:I never thought of that before. Pro bono = practice.
Nice!

I had to look up what "pro bono" (latin "for good") means here, as it is not explained in the thread.
Now I know: "Pro bono"="for good business"

nkelsch wrote:Seems 'odd' to me that a law firm with such a 'pro bono' policy would choose to take on a case for a 'for profit commercial business' when there are no end to legitimate people who would need free legal representation. I would hardly consider a civil dispute between two commercial for-profit companies 'for the public good'.

.

Company and IP law is part of the public good just as much as human rights. We depend a lot on companies for jobs, our daily needs, and leisure opportunities.

To take one view, GW have done a lot of bullying the past couple of years about Specialist Games Blood Bowl), fan web sites, and conversion parts makers. All this reduced the capability of third parties to offer useful material to consumers, create jobs, and so on.

If GW are able to over claim and over enforce their rights simply because they have a lot of money, then a pro bono case is an excellent way to set things back on the proper course.

While I appreciate the need and effort to make a statement about the current legal battle, can you really call it a battle, seems overly dramatic to me.

Surely just posting it on your own website and store is sufficient.

This whole thread is just a time bomb, and mod heavy one at that.

Just don't see the point to be honest.

Good luck Chapterhouse

Congrats on the firm, goodluck in general!

I think everyone can agree on one thing, everyone has an interest in seeing how this plays out, and the fine details of the outcome.

I forsee some solifpd line in the sand in the future, rather then the fuzzy ish ones there are now no matter which way the case goes!

Goes without saying, opinion is divided to say the least!

I'm certainly fascinated by this news, and will be watching for more developments.

It sure beats yet another thread on whether MM/HF speeders are better than Typhoons.

Good luck!

TheSecretSquig wrote:Go Team!

I hope it turns out well for CH. GW are playing the Microsoft of Wargaming companies. CH cannot harm GW sales, in fact, the opposite, its just GW trying to flex their power.

Remember, there is no such thing as bad PR.

Exactly. A good example...a couple months ago I bought some Scibor Celtic Armors...and a box of Wolf Guard Terminators to use fro parts. If it werent for the Scibor bodies I never would have bought the Wolf Guard box. Thats a $50 sale that might not have been. Repeat that a couple thousand times and thats a good chunk of cash.

Best of luck CH.

Mat

paulson games wrote:So now that you have a lawyer doing your defence for free are you going to start refunding the donations people have made to help defend your company?

I was wondering how long it would take for that comment to pop up.
Keep in mind that those donations were for CH's legal defense fund. Although their *current* representation is pro bono (@ Kroothawk, you can also just think of it as "pro bono = free"), their previous representation most certainly was not.

Knowing Nick & company as I do, I'm certain that the donation button will only remain live for as long as they're still "in the red" from the previous lawyer, if even that long.

----------------------------------------------

Here are the (relatively rhetorical) questions/statements I've got swirling around in my head:

Previously, I presumed that CH's lawyer was going to shoot for an out of court settlement. Essentially, no money would change hands, no molds would be destroyed, and CH would agree to abide by a certain rule of decorum. Essentially, a list of what's not okay to do, as negotiated by his lawyer. That would've been the fiscally intelligent thing to do.
Now that he has a legat team that's not costing him, I'm wondering if that's still the case. Will CH still be willing to settle out of court? Will his lawyers?

In the end, based on the knowledge provided by the actual lawyers who have posted on the subject and not my personal opinions or the ramblings of armchair lawyers, I believe CH would win in court. Under that presumption, then, what is the best route for CH and the firm?
Others have speculated that the firm may have a larger client in the works who might benefit from some precedent. In this case, only an actual decision by the court would help them. On the other hand, if it's just something that someone at the firm is passionate about, it could be good for them just to get a settlement in CH's favor.

Whether we want to believe it or not, if it goes to court, this case COULD be an important one in IP law. It could set precedent for years to come... for generations to come. As has been reiterated countless times by our lawyers-in-residence, IP law is a murky, convoluted place. It's dark and unfriendly there. It smells like armpit and the seats are often sticky.
Being *the* attorney who represented the victor in this court case would be a big deal. Think of some of the big cases in American legal history; Rowe v Wade, Brown v the Board of Education, Dred Scott v Sanford. Imagine being able to say you were the lawyer who represented the victor in those cases.
Now, I am *IN NO WAY* attempting to compare the importance of GW v. CH to the above cases. That would be asinine. My point is that, for someone who practices IP law, being able to say "I represented Chapterhouse in Games Workshop v Chapterhouse," when it ended up in a landslide victory for CH which set the basis for IP law for years to come, would be something that one would want to put on their resume. That's not to mention that it's something one could hold over the heads of their lawyer friends.
"I won the case in GW v CH. How's the whole 'negotiating speeding tickets' thing going for you?" LOL

Eric

Chapterhouse wrote:
Actually, I did ask them if this was ok, and they said it was, I was concerned about showing our hand with out "pro-bono" defense among other things.

You guys are wayyyy too paranoid sometimes!

Just because you're paranoid, don't mean Kirby ain't after you...

Congrats Nick! All the best...

Company and IP law is part of the public good just as much as human rights. We depend a lot on companies for jobs, our daily needs, and leisure opportunities.

To take one view, GW have done a lot of bullying the past couple of years about Specialist Games Blood Bowl), fan web sites, and conversion parts makers. All this reduced the capability of third parties to offer useful material to consumers, create jobs, and so on.

If GW are able to over claim and over enforce their rights simply because they have a lot of money, then a pro bono case is an excellent way to set things back on the proper course.

Agreed, it will be nice to see a case decided on its merits rather than who has the deepest pockets. GW has used this tactic for far too long. The legal system has become the GW tool of choice, used to shut down small companies. Perhaps after this case they will file on actual merits rather than using the legal system as a business tactic. Regardless of how you feel about this case, its good to see it actually make it into court.

I'm happy to see Nick has found an approach to continue litigation. I would have loved to help, were I closer to Illinois and in private practice.

MagickalMemories wrote:

paulson games wrote:So now that you have a lawyer doing your defence for free are you going to start refunding the donations people have made to help defend your company?

I was wondering how long it would take for that comment to pop up.
Keep in mind that those donations were for CH's legal defense fund. Although their *current* representation is pro bono (@ Kroothawk, you can also just think of it as "pro bono = free"), their previous representation most certainly was not.

Note, too, that most pro bono work only covers the lawyer time; the client still foots the bill for court fees, deposition fees, document copying, and all the other expenses related to a court case.

Well, there ya go, then!

In this thread, a lot of people are telling CHS not to post. I generally agree with that sentiment, specifically because it prevents any risk of contaminating things by sharing fact or opinion.

That said, a tremendous amount of information can be shared about the case once it gets going. For reference, I would direct people to one of my favorite blogs:
- GROKLAW (http://www.groklaw.net/)
GROKLAW is an IP-heavy blog that was created to follow SCO v IBM, both sides having *excellent* counsel. While the subject itself may not be of interest, the sheer scope and depth of the material shows how open the US court system is, and definitely helps the layperson understand more about how the US legal system works. As a bonus, you might even learn something about IP Law.

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Then what's the point of this thread?

The point is to discuss the news of CH obtaining legal counsel. You can take the tomfoolery elsewhere, preferably Dakka Discussions. If you want to say "hope you lose" on the way out, fine. Just make sure it's a bit more gentlemanly than that.

There are already some ground rules for this thread. I'd appreciate if you would follow them.

What a double standard. It's ok to say "Hope you win" or "Congratulations on getting counsel", but not "Hope you lose?".

Pro Bono.... You get what you pay for.

Kirasu wrote:I hope GW loses so they're forced to MAYBE produce kits people want.. under threat of someone else doing it for us

There is no real excuse for lack of thunderwolves, warlock on jetbike conversions or like half the stuff in the nid book. Anyway good luck

Actually, there's plenty of reasons for it. You don't get everything at once. That's GW's release schedule policy- it provides for opportunities to sell items over a period of time, and release more variety of models for multiple armies & systems within the year.

LittleLeadMen wrote:What a double standard. It's ok to say "Hope you win" or "Congratulations on getting counsel", but not "Hope you lose?".

Please read what you've quoted a bit closer. It is perfectly legitimate to express an opinion that CH is in the wrong here and that one hopes that GW prevails. As I mentioned, please just be polite about it. (I think you'll find that wishing someone well is inherently polite but you have to make an effort when you wish someone ill.)

By it's very nature, criticism is never going to be viewed as polite, particularly when the topic up for discussion is binary in nature. One will win, one will lose.

I look forward to GW winning this case. I think that it's important that the creators of ideas are allowed to have their rights protected, and that they have the sole right to profit from their creations.

LittleLeadMen wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Then what's the point of this thread?

The point is to discuss the news of CH obtaining legal counsel. You can take the tomfoolery elsewhere, preferably Dakka Discussions. If you want to say "hope you lose" on the way out, fine. Just make sure it's a bit more gentlemanly than that.

There are already some ground rules for this thread. I'd appreciate if you would follow them.

What a double standard. It's ok to say "Hope you win" or "Congratulations on getting counsel", but not "Hope you lose?".

Pro Bono.... You get what you pay for.

Kirasu wrote:I hope GW loses so they're forced to MAYBE produce kits people want.. under threat of someone else doing it for us

There is no real excuse for lack of thunderwolves, warlock on jetbike conversions or like half the stuff in the nid book. Anyway good luck

Actually, there's plenty of reasons for it. You don't get everything at once. That's GW's release schedule policy- it provides for opportunities to sell items over a period of time, and release more variety of models for multiple armies & systems within the year.

In short, I believe the point is to be polite. Saying, 'I hope you win.', is generally considered polite. Saying, 'I hope you lose.', especially whilst adding emotionality to it, is not.

LittleLeadMen wrote:I look forward to GW winning this case. I think that it's important that the creators of ideas are allowed to have their rights protected, and that they have the sole right to profit from their creations.

For future reference to any who are confused, this is the model for a polite and thoughtful post that is not in support of CH.

Manchu wrote:

LittleLeadMen wrote:What a double standard. It's ok to say "Hope you win" or "Congratulations on getting counsel", but not "Hope you lose?".

Please read what you've quoted a bit closer. It is perfectly legitimate to express an opinion that CH is in the wrong here and that one hopes that GW prevails. As I mentioned, please just be polite about it. (I think you'll find that wishing someone well is inherently polite but you have to make an effort when you wish someone ill.)

...and there you go.

Then I'll choose to be polite to Games Workshop's case. Congratulations of having counsel GW. I wish you the best in your upcoming litigation.

I don't care who wins. I only hope that this is quickly resolved so people can stop gumming up threads with pointless conjecture.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:I don't care who wins. I only hope that this is quickly resolved so people can stop gumming up threads with pointless conjecture.

I don't think you understand how our legal system works for IP...