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.

Ian Sturrock wrote:If the judge does require CHS to do what GW want in terms of disclosure, I am sure they'll have a whole lot of fun naming practically every SF and fantasy and horror and modern war DVD, videogame, and novel any of their staff own in Part 2.

The amusing thing, is that GW's works tend to be so derivative of already existing concepts and franchises (Alien, Lord of the Rings, Dungeons and Dragons, Greek mythology, etc), that CHS can basically list the same stuff that GW originated from. I mean, especially with the Tyranid stuff.

GW counsel: 'Milord, I believe that this CHS Mycetic spore/Tervigon kits are direct rips from GW'.
CHS counsel: 'Actually, you'll find they look just like that movie 'Alien'. Where did you get your Tyranid concept from by the way?'

Do you think that CHS could source 'Dynasty' as their inspiration for oversize shoulder pads?

On a serious note, how can GW reasonable expect 'access to their publications' be a justifiable means to prosecution when they make their money by selling to the public? It's not exactly trade secrets is it.

Cheers

Andrew

Eldanar,

I think it is probably a dig at the independent development argument, (apart from just being annoying and difficult) but I don't think that argument was going to fly in the first place.

However, I don't think No. 2 is a proper discovery issue. In terms of independent development, it makes no difference what sources were relied on, other than that they were not the allegedly infringed works.

An artist is technically not required to rely on inspiration from any source in order to create a work of art. Independent development, as far as I understand, simply relies on not having had access to the allegedly infringed work. If the author did not have access to the allegedly infringed work, the author could not have copied that work. This, again, is the heart of copyright law: copying. One must have access to a work in order to make a copy of it. Otherwise, the accused work is simply "independently created" and thus not a copy of the allegedly infringed work, even if it is exactly the same thing.

Now, I believe it is Games Workshop's burden to demonstrate that Chapterhouse Studios's products copy its allegedly infringed works. Question No. 2 is framed in such a way that it both inherently assumes Games Workshop's works were relied on by Chapterhouse Studios and essentially asks the Defendant to identify which of the Plaintiff's works it believes it has infringed.

This question has been objected to as being vague and ambiguous, which makes a great deal of sense. If Games Workshop's complaint does not sufficiently specify specifically which of the Defendant's works are accused of copying which of the Plaintiff's alleged copyrights, a response to this question could amount to inappropriately forcing the Defendant to identify, for the -Plaintiff-, how to appropriately satisfy Rule 8. Hence, the Plaintiff is using discovery to go "fishing" in order to define its claims instead of presenting appropriately defined claims and then seeking reasonable discovery related to said claims.

I think that's the general idea behind the specific objection to No. 2.

"Chapterhouse objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Chapterhouse further objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seeking information outside the scope of discovery. Chapterhouse further objects specifically to the word “sources” as vague and ambiguous, and overbroad and unduly burdensome. Chapterhouse further objects to the string of participles “consulted, used, reviewed, or relied on” as vague and ambiguous, and overbroad and unduly burdensome."

Janthkin wrote:

Eldanar wrote:I don't really think GW interrogatories here are that unreasonable.

In No. 1:

Identify each Games Workshop publication, including (without limitation) copies of any of the works identified in paragraphs 12-14 of the Amended Complaint and/or any Games Workshop newsletter, and/or any Games Workshop miniatures and/or gaming accessories, that has ever been in Chapterhouse’s possession, custody or control.

GW is basically asking CHS to name every GW book it has ever owned. What exactly they think this will prove, I don't know. I'm not sure if a model based on an old picture, or a description in a book, is an infringement or not?

Quick, by the end of business tomorrow, provide me a list of every GW miniature you've ever owned (or borrowed). Oh, and every White Dwarf you've ever read, every codex you've ever had (all editions), and don't forget those old copies of Talisman, Space Hulk, and/or Battlemasters you might have played with 15+ years ago....

Can't do it? I doubt I could.

I could probably do it in an hour, and get 97-99% of it. I've owned and/or read, and probably still own, every book GW has put out for 40K, WHFB, BB, BFG, and a couple other game systems from about 1990-2008. In 2008, I quit getting WD's, and I stopped buying WHFB stuff, except for the armies that I own, HE's and Chaos. I also only have a couple of the Apoc books.

I remember having to respond to a request like this in a lawsuit back when I was still green behind the ears. And we sent them everything. When someone makes a request like this, you just white wall them.

I'm sure there is a website out there that lists evey publication GW has ever made. Just go copy and paste it, and then clean it up some, and then submit that back.

The time constraint might be an issue, but I don't recall that being mentioned (and I have not seen these documents yet).

weeble1000 wrote:Eldanar,

I think it is probably a dig at the independent development argument, (apart from just being annoying and difficult) but I don't think that argument was going to fly in the first place.

However, I don't think No. 2 is a proper discovery issue. In terms of independent development, it makes no difference what sources were relied on, other than that they were not the allegedly infringed works.

An artist is technically not required to rely on inspiration from any source in order to create a work of art. Independent development, as far as I understand, simply relies on not having had access to the allegedly infringed work. If the author did not have access to the allegedly infringed work, the author could not have copied that work. This, again, is the heart of copyright law: copying. One must have access to a work in order to make a copy of it. Otherwise, the accused work is simply "independently created" and thus not a copy of the allegedly infringed work, even if it is exactly the same thing.

Now, I believe it is Games Workshop's burden to demonstrate that Chapterhouse Studios's products copy its allegedly infringed works. Question No. 2 is framed in such a way that it both inherently assumes Games Workshop's works were relied on by Chapterhouse Studios and essentially asks the Defendant to identify which of the Plaintiff's works it believes it has infringed.

This question has been objected to as being vague and ambiguous, which makes a great deal of sense. If Games Workshop's complaint does not sufficiently specify specifically which of the Defendant's works are accused of copying which of the Plaintiff's alleged copyrights, a response to this question could amount to inappropriately forcing the Defendant to identify, for the -Plaintiff-, how to appropriately satisfy Rule 8. Hence, the Plaintiff is using discovery to go "fishing" in order to define its claims instead of presenting appropriately defined claims and then seeking reasonable discovery related to said claims.

I think that's the general idea behind the specific objection to No. 2.

"Chapterhouse objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Chapterhouse further objects to this interrogatory as unduly burdensome, oppressive, and seeking information outside the scope of discovery. Chapterhouse further objects specifically to the word “sources” as vague and ambiguous, and overbroad and unduly burdensome. Chapterhouse further objects to the string of participles “consulted, used, reviewed, or relied on” as vague and ambiguous, and overbroad and unduly burdensome."

This goes back to GW's theory that they own their universe and everything derived from it. And that is what I was kind of trying to get at. From what those of you with more IP background have said, this is not a valid argument; yet this continues to be the theme that GW appears to keep trying to go back to.

And from what you are saying, GW also appears to be trying to apply a burden shifting maneuver, which also seems a little odd; but is understandable if they want to minimize expenses, time and effort. Based on your analysis, as well as general principles of jurisprudence, this does not appear likely to happen.

AndrewC wrote:Do you think that CHS could source 'Dynasty' as their inspiration for oversize shoulder pads?

On a serious note, how can GW reasonable expect 'access to their publications' be a justifiable means to prosecution when they make their money by selling to the public? It's not exactly trade secrets is it.

Cheers

Andrew

1980's pop culture reference, FTW.

It seems clear to me that GW have to demonstrate they have genuine ownership of copyrights they are accusing CH of violating. If they make a reasonable looking claim on something, the Chaos Star for instance, CH can then attempt to disprove it.

They should respond with the Starship Troopers novel.

They should respond with Blizzard's Starcraft game.

It looks like round 3 of GW just rephrasing its same question without ever really getting back to the questions posed by the court to GW.

aka_mythos wrote:It looks like round 3 of GW just rephrasing its same question without ever really getting back to the questions posed by the court to GW.

It really does, doesn't it?

I'm surprised the judge didn't have something rather pointed to say about that...

Alpharius wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:It looks like round 3 of GW just rephrasing its same question without ever really getting back to the questions posed by the court to GW.

It really does, doesn't it?

I'm surprised the judge didn't have something rather pointed to say about that...

I wonder if he will on the 21st.

Were any questions directed to Paulson, weeble?

Alpharius wrote:I'm surprised the judge didn't have something rather pointed to say about that...

He might have something to say on Tuesday when the motion is presented in open court. Anybody live in Chicago?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dysartes wrote:Were any questions directed to Paulson, weeble?

Not that I know of. Paulson did disclose that Paulson Games is a sole proprietorship, if anyone actually finds that interesting.

Dysartes wrote:Were any questions directed to Paulson, weeble?

Maybe what GW books Paulson has used when ... not... designing the Chapterhouse walker

Kroothawk wrote:Could it be that GW lawyers deliberately try to get this case dismissed by court just to get out of this unwinnable case without setting precedence?

@weeble: Any idea on this?

Kroothawk wrote:

Kroothawk wrote:Could it be that GW lawyers deliberately try to get this case dismissed by court just to get out of this unwinnable case without setting precedence?

@weeble: Any idea on this?

I thought they were beyond this? As I understood it from earlier comments, now that the court has issued directions on explanatory investigations and discoveries the opportunity to dismiss without apportioning guilt had passed.

There was also an earlier post in which it was explained that the decision of this court wouldn't actually set a precedence as it was a 'local' court as opposed to a 'higher' court. (Sorry my knowledge of the American court 'ranks' is abysmal) It may be the case then that GW could not continue all the way and just accept thier fate and not appeal upwards as the decision, should it go against them, would then become a basis for a precedent. Yes/No?

Now remember in light of the recent case here in the UK, NO DISCUSSING THE CASE ON FACEBOOK!

Cheers

Andrew

AndrewC wrote:

Now remember in light of the recent case here in the UK, NO DISCUSSING THE CASE ON FACEBOOK!

Cheers

Andrew

??? What was that facebook case about?

If they did atempt to appeal to a higher court it probly wouldnt be accepted thus the ast decsion stands. but any way GW should just shut up and let them do it. Its not like a lot of people buy their stuff.

warboss wrote:??? What was that facebook case about?

I believe a juror in a case added the defendant as a Friend, causing a conflict of interests. Said juror has been jailed for eight months, I believe - the BBC should have the story on there, as it went up on there this week.

Dysartes wrote:

warboss wrote:??? What was that facebook case about?

I believe a juror in a case added the defendant as a Friend, causing a conflict of interests. Said juror has been jailed for eight months, I believe - the BBC should have the story on there, as it went up on there this week.

Here is the link for the case in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The woman involved must be completely stupid, incidentally.

Tantras wrote:

Dysartes wrote:

warboss wrote:??? What was that facebook case about?

I believe a juror in a case added the defendant as a Friend, causing a conflict of interests. Said juror has been jailed for eight months, I believe - the BBC should have the story on there, as it went up on there this week.

Here is the link for the case in question.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The woman involved must be completely stupid, incidentally.

Thank you both for the link and info... and, yes, she's about as smart as a box of rocks... wow.

There is a thread to discuss that juror already:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/376548.page

weeble1000 wrote:The status hearing is held and continued until the 21st.

Games Workshop has made a motion to compel Chapterhouse Studios to answer its interrogatories, specifically No. 1 and 2.

No. 1:

Identify each Games Workshop publication, including (without limitation) copies of any of the works identified in paragraphs 12-14 of the Amended Complaint and/or any Games Workshop newsletter, and/or any Games Workshop miniatures and/or gaming accessories, that has ever been in Chapterhouse’s possession, custody or control.

I don't see anything wrong with this part. Chapterhouse is more knowledgable about what works it had access to than GW would be, and so this doesn't seem improper. CH may argue that it is unduly burdensome, and may simply admit that they had access to the works idenfied by GW.

No. 2:

Identify any and all sources consulted, used, reviewed or relied on by Chapterhouse in creating each of the Accused Works.

"To the extent that Chapterhouse continues to refuse to identify the sources it relied upon in creating the accused works, it should be precluded from using any of the information that should have been provided in its interrogatory answer as evidence to meet any of its burdens of proof in this case, including in support of its defense of independent creation."

This is just absurd. GW is basically saying "Tell us what you used to infringe our work. If you don't tell us, then you can't claim you came up with it on your own." But if CH really did independently create the infringing work, then they wouldn't be able to satisfy this element... Hmm.

However, I expect CH probably won't be asserting independent creation as to most of their products, and therefore it would be easier for them to simply acknowledge that there was no independent creation than to comply with the discovery request.

Note that I have no idea how this would play into CH's legal strategy. It might be a really terrible idea, or it might not affect them at all.

also:

From what I understand, an independent development defense depends on lack of access to the allegedly accused work. Unlike patents, copyright law allows for the exact same work of art to be created independently, that is, two people on opposite sides of the world can make the same work of art without knowing about the other and that's okay.

Yes. Although in some cases, access may be presumed (although rebuttable) if the two works are strikingly similar.

The problem with these interrogatories is that GW still really hasn't pointed out specifically which CH products are infringing of which GW products. Until the scope of the copyrights asserted has been determined, it's almost impossible for CH to adequately respond to these interrogatories.

Surely it would be simpler to say that chapter house had no GW material in it's possession and any materials in the possession of the sculptors/designers was for the sole purpose of personal pursuits. Unless chapter house bought GW materials on there business account surely this could not be disproved muddying the waters by blurring the boundaries between awareness and deliberate copying of said materials found in the possession of any chapter house sculptors/designers.

Except that it would be a bald faced lie and CHS is better than that.
Early on, CHS was very open about their creation process. Even now, they'll tell you. All of their add-ons are created with specific measurements to fit GW kits (which, in many cases, Forgeworld doesn't even do!).

Eric

MagickalMemories wrote:Except that it would be a bald faced lie and CHS is better than that.
Early on, CHS was very open about their creation process. Even now, they'll tell you. All of their add-ons are created with specific measurements to fit GW kits (which, in many cases, Forgeworld doesn't even do!).

Eric

Yeah, it is pretty clear because original threads showed they used GW doors for prototyping and only later did they shift to autocad blanks. They also show how they used 3d models of GW vehicles for designing add-ons. Even recently they show pictures of their new releases attached to GW models and designed for GW models.

They made no effort to hide any of this and bragged for years by getting in troll-fights with anyone asks 'Are you sure this is legal?' So there is plenty of evidence out there of CH's development process and intent. While they can argue they are making legal add-ons with generic IP, I don't think they can claim to have developed their stuff in a vacuum and it is all coincidental.

GW counsel: 'Milord, I believe that this CHS Mycetic spore/Tervigon kits are direct rips from GW'.
CHS counsel: 'Actually, you'll find they look just like that movie 'Alien'. Where did you get your Tyranid concept from by the way?'

How do you claim the tervigon kit wasn't based off GW tyranids when it requires parts from GW tyranids to be made into a tervigon and is called a tyranid? It isn't like it is a whole, complete standalone model that could have been made independently like the Tau walker or the Lamassu.

I mean, that is insulting to the intelligence of the court to make that argument.

nkelsch wrote:

MagickalMemories wrote:Except that it would be a bald faced lie and CHS is better than that.
Early on, CHS was very open about their creation process. Even now, they'll tell you. All of their add-ons are created with specific measurements to fit GW kits (which, in many cases, Forgeworld doesn't even do!).

Eric

...They made no effort to hide any of this and bragged for years by getting in troll-fights with anyone asks 'Are you sure this is legal?' So there is plenty of evidence out there of CH's development process and intent. While they can argue they are making legal add-ons with generic IP, I don't think they can claim to have developed their stuff in a vacuum and it is all coincidental.

Bragging about the methodology isn't the same as bragging about unfair IP use, as you imply. I wouldn't argue its generic IP, more just that IP law doesn't protect the dimensioning of the models used to create the add-on kits.

Claims to a "coincidental vacuum," in the strictest sense... that is coming from GW trying to eliminate one of the acceptable defenses to infringement, if the court rules against CH.

nkelsch wrote:
How do you claim the tervigon kit wasn't based off GW tyranids when it requires parts from GW tyranids to be made into a tervigon and is called a tyranid? ...

You can claim it because GW has no physical 3d depiction of a tervigon, identical or near identical to CH's; that CH isn't selling the GW parts so the fact that you need those is actually irrelevant to whether CH has violated GWs rights. CH is selling an arm-less, leg-less body... does just a torso/head and bits represent a complete depiction of GW's IP?-No. Next it is strictly acceptable for one company to use the trademarked name of another companies' product when necessary in describing compatibility and use... no different than the countless un-licensed companies making an "iPad-2 case."

nkelsch wrote:

They made no effort to hide any of this and bragged for years by getting in troll-fights with anyone asks 'Are you sure this is legal?' So there is plenty of evidence out there of CH's development process and intent. While they can argue they are making legal add-ons with generic IP, I don't think they can claim to have developed their stuff in a vacuum and it is all coincidental.
.

I've seen many CH threads and never got the impression they were bragging about their legality. In fact, I think they practically begged users to keep comments limited to the release in question....and not show the Internet their extensive, arm chair IP attorney credentials. They usually said "hey we've checked and according to our counsel we are ok----let's move on".

AgeOfEgos wrote:

I've seen many CH threads and never got the impression they were bragging about their legality. In fact, I think they practically begged users to keep comments limited to the release in question....and not show the Internet their extensive, arm chair IP attorney credentials. They usually said "hey we've checked and according to our counsel we are ok----let's move on".

While I personally fully agree with their opinion and have bought some of their stuff, they were a more brash and vehement than they perhaps should have been when defending against the trolls initially a few years back. They've mellowed out since but I can definitely see how their old responses could have been seen as bragging when heatedly responding to the blatant trolling in their early threads.

Anyway, that is off the topic.

I am looking forwards to the next instalment from the actual case.

Kilkrazy wrote:Anyway, that is off the topic.

I am looking forwards to the next instalment from the actual case.

Yeah me too

Isn't the next part of the case scheduled for today? Or has it been postponed for some reason?