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.

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:


I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.

To be fair, this lady was little more than a secretary before she got promoted due to Chris Woodward's resignation.

I think the reason for the anger was because the Subpoena did not have any reference to asking questions about GW's corporate structure and Foley and Larder thought those questions were wasting deposition time.

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I think the reason for the anger was because the Subpoena did not have any reference to asking questions about GW's corporate structure and Foley and Larder thought those questions were wasting deposition time.

Concerning wasting deposition time: Aren't Foley &Larder lawyers the ones not willing to provide all documents for a formally correct case, so that Chapterhouse still is not informed what exacly they are accused of?

 Lordhat wrote:

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:


I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.

To be fair, this lady was little more than a secretary before she got promoted due to Chris Woodward's resignation.

That's basically it. I'm wondering why she was even picked to do this.

Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
So I've combed over the Exhibit's for Chapterhouses' motion for Summary Judgement.

A few things

Per the deposition of the Head of Sales of GW Retail (North America) Sandra Casey:
1. GW is broken up into separate companies that operate under the management group but are separate Legal entities:
2. Games Workshop Group PLC (Corporate Management)
3. GW United limited (UK, this included design studio etc..)
4. GW Retail (North America)
<Insert other branches here>

Just one comment i have to make after seeing this:

Q. Who do you currently report to?
A. I report to Mark Wells.

Q. And did you have knowledge of the overall corporate structure of Games Workshop before your preparations for the -- this deposition?
A. No.

I am dumbfounded as to how she has a direct line to Mark Wells but does not understand how the corporate structure is laid out. She's gotta be either lying under oath, completely ignorant to her situation or the CEO's above her have no faith in their managers abilities to comprehend overall company org charts.

From a legal point of view, that is a very broad question. The attorney must be more specific if he wants a more specific answer. It may be likely that she does not have complete and comprehensive knowledge of the entire specific structure of a multi-million dollar highly compartmentalized company.

She is not allowed to state what she has "heard" (hearsay) or what she "thinks" (opinion, only admissible from Expert Witnesses). She can only give facts.

If she had said "Yes", he could have asked her specific questions on the entirety of GW corporate ins-and-outs. She would not have known those answers. The lawyer (who is undoubtedly good at his job) will then turn that on her, saying that she is backtracking on her previous testimony, destroying any credibility she might have as a useable witness.

Vermillion wrote:
... Why doesn't chapterhouses lawyers just point out the Mattel cannot stop other manufacturers making "giant robots which change into vehicles".

One, you're thinking Hasbro, not Mattel.

Two, Hasbro was beaten to it not only by a large number of Japanese companies, but also in the states by the makers of the Go-bots(which Hasbro now owns, incidentally). It's not like they own the patent on the toys they licensed to create their brand. In fact, until 1986(the movie and Season 3), there were NO designs created specifically for the Transformers brand. Until then, it was a variety of Japanese toys pulled from various companies(including their partner Takara, Tomy before Takara purchased them, and even Takatoku/Bandai's Valkyrie). In fact, if you were a Japanese fan, you couldn't get certain characters as branded Transformers toys because they were based on toys released by Takara's rival companies in the transforming toy business.

In short, the reason Hasbro can't stop other manufacturers from making transforming robot toys is because they didn't invented the concept, much less patent it. They just borrowed the concept from other, more creative people and made it more profitable.

This has likely be discussed but I'm not searching through 80+ pages to find it, but would Chapterhouse be doing itself a favor if they used more dubious language in their products? Like instead of using Space Marine, they could call it Space Soldier or something. Instead of Melta-Gun, say "Heat Ray."

Using the definition of porn as "I know it when I see it" approach, just looking at CH product line, it does seem that CH is overstepping it's bounds on some stuff, others less so. But the language seems like it'd be an easy way to side step a good deal of the heat from GW.

 MisterMoon wrote:
This has likely be discussed but I'm not searching through 80+ pages to find it, but would Chapterhouse be doing itself a favor if they used more dubious language in their products? Like instead of using Space Marine, they could call it Space Soldier or something. Instead of Melta-Gun, say "Heat Ray."

Using the definition of porn as "I know it when I see it" approach, just looking at CH product line, it does seem that CH is overstepping it's bounds on some stuff, others less so. But the language seems like it'd be an easy way to side step a good deal of the heat from GW.

i think the gist of the pages was that while they might call it something similar, it would not stop the lawsuit as there are still many things that are taken more or less directly from GW's IP. Take for instance the iconographic pauldrons, or the combi-weapon attachment designs. CHS has started changing some of its products' names, but that's probably got more to do with the suggestion of their attorneys than any effort to eschew the wrath of the almighty GW.

Also, this just in:

looks like GW may now also be pursuing a claim against Lucasfilm et al. for copying htier chaos cultists:

I would like to draw your attention to bottom left corner, bottom right corner and the three middle in the first two rows. Clearly, the tusken sand raiders are ripped off of GW's IP /sarcasm

 MisterMoon wrote:
This has likely be discussed but I'm not searching through 80+ pages to find it, but would Chapterhouse be doing itself a favor if they used more dubious language in their products? Like instead of using Space Marine, they could call it Space Soldier or something. Instead of Melta-Gun, say "Heat Ray."

Using the definition of porn as "I know it when I see it" approach, just looking at CH product line, it does seem that CH is overstepping it's bounds on some stuff, others less so. But the language seems like it'd be an easy way to side step a good deal of the heat from GW.

The assertion's been that CHS' use of names associated with GW is a matter of describing compatibility with GW products, which is one of the few specific examples of fair use established for trademarks. Haters are going to hate and GW's yet to prove a substantive case... meaning GW's choice to sue CHS is ultimately just as unjustified as if they were to sue CHS for using implied naming, that is there isn't a legal distinction. The distinction that GW is trying to assert is that CHS is trying to assert ownership over trademarks, it might not even have a legitimate claim to... By indicating compatibility there is no assertion of ownership. Might CHS avoid GW's ire by being dubious?-Sure, but if you're acting within you're rights, why would do something to pretend or imply otherwise.

As far as esthetics go, its a byproduct of compatibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 poda_t wrote:

CHS has started changing some of its products' names, but that's probably got more to do with the suggestion of their attorneys than any effort to eschew the wrath of the almighty GW.

GW's assertion on it claim for unfair trademark use in seeking damages demands CHS' closure and siezure or destruction of all assets because no other remedy can resolve their unfair trademark claim. In the unlikely event that the court were to rule against CHS, the fact that it can change the product description is factual proof that there is a remedial action besides CHS' destruction, so its for that potentiality that they've taken the precaution.

 Platuan4th wrote:

In short, the reason Hasbro can't stop other manufacturers from making transforming robot toys is because they didn't invented the concept, much less patent it. They just borrowed the concept from other, more creative people and made it more profitable.

One could say very similar things about where GW has come up with the majority of their product lines.

Like I said before. It's a good think the Frank Herbert estate doesn't define copyright infringement like GW does, for GW would be getting sued for all the material they stole from the Dune universe for the backstory of the Imperium.

-timeline of exactly 10,000 years after a gigantic war/upheaval
-Astropaths are in the exact same niche as the navigator's Guild in Dune
-the 'Machine Crusade' taking place in each storyline and nearly destroying all of humanity
-That Machine Crusade being the basis of manpower and dogma before technological innovation and reliance

Hell, I think games Workshop easily uses a larger percentage of outside IP as a basis for their own than the other companies that they are chasing after for Copyright Infringement.

It is easy to forget that GW's idea of IP law is far from realistic. So Dune couldn't successfully sue GW for vague similarities or inspiration. And it is a good thing that IP law doesn't work this way, as it would make creative work almost impossible.

Every person doing creative work knows how essential cross inspiration by others is, only some bloghead managers and greedy lawyers are competely alien to how the creative process works and try to force their views on the world. Jes Goodwin would never have thought of sueing others for using an arrow, pelt, skull or wings on miniatures..

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Like I said before. It's a good think the Frank Herbert estate doesn't define copyright infringement like GW does, for GW would be getting sued for all the material they stole from the Dune universe for the backstory of the Imperium.

-timeline of exactly 10,000 years after a gigantic war/upheaval
-Astropaths are in the exact same niche as the navigator's Guild in Dune
-the 'Machine Crusade' taking place in each storyline and nearly destroying all of humanity
-That Machine Crusade being the basis of manpower and dogma before technological innovation and reliance

Hell, I think games Workshop easily uses a larger percentage of outside IP as a basis for their own than the other companies that they are chasing after for Copyright Infringement.

General story Ideas are one thing. Legally copyrighted material is another.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kroothawk wrote:
It is easy to forget that GW's idea of IP law is far from realistic. So Dune couldn't successfully sue GW for vague similarities or inspiration. And it is a good thing that IP law doesn't work this way, as it would make creative work almost impossible.

Every person doing creative work knows how essential cross inspiration by others is, only some bloghead managers and greedy lawyers are competely alien to how the creative process works and try to force their views on the world. Jes Goodwin would never have thought of sueing others for using an arrow, pelt, skull or wings on miniatures..

No one has said that Dune and Frank Herbert can't sue Games Workshop. They simply haven't. At this point, the statute of limitations has run and they can't.

IP protection is only as strong as the protection. You want to protect your intellectual turf? You had better goddamned well protect your intellectual turf!

Hey, this is a great idea!
I'm going to use that.
Did you copyright/patent/trademark it?
No.
Great!

My guess is that they are trying to show how the structure of the company is broken down so that they can determine what theoretical damages are or aren't being done to the various branches.

If they show that it's only the UK branch that controls the marketing, branding, websales, and product registration, then GW can't claim that the seperate US based retail branch is being hurt by CH sales inside the US. If anything is being "damaged" they'd only be able to claim their international sales numbers. (Reducing the scope of their claimed sales by several million a year)

Also it illustrates that GW in essence is using un-liscenssed 3rd party to supply the all of the US and Canadian based stores and web orders. I'm by no means a legal eagle but if I go to a 3rd party vendor to have stuff spin cast it always requires a signed piece of paper granting them authorization to produce those pieces. It sounds like there's not even a formal contract held between GW UK and US retail that makes the stuff. I don't know all the implications of that but it may be something that creates a lot of legal fall out.

If the wrong branch of their company filed suit and that branch doesn't hold the copyright then the case would be dismissed. (as each branch is a wholely sepeprate entity) I'd assume that GW isn't that blindly stupid, but nothing surprises me with them anymore.

As I've been out of this case for some time I have no clue on this aspect, it's merely personal speculation.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

No one has said that Dune and Frank Herbert can't sue Games Workshop. They simply haven't. At this point, the statute of limitations has run and they can't.

The statute of limitations clock doesn't start running until the offense stops. The offense is ongoing, so the clock hasn't started at all.

If you kidnap someone and hold them in your basement for 20 years - you can not then go to the cops and say...I have been holding this person in captivity for 20 years, but that is OK because the statute of limitations was only 10.

@Sean: Darn... I mean, Interesting... carry on

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:
No one has said that Dune and Frank Herbert can't sue Games Workshop. They simply haven't. At this point, the statute of limitations has run and they can't.

They certainly can sue, but not successfully

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:
IP protection is only as strong as the protection. You want to protect your intellectual turf? You had better goddamned well protect your intellectual turf!

Hey, this is a great idea!
I'm going to use that.
Did you copyright/patent/trademark it?
No.
Great!

You can't copyright or trademark an idea. Only its concrete "manifestations".

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

No one has said that Dune and Frank Herbert can't sue Games Workshop. They simply haven't. At this point, the statute of limitations has run and they can't.

The statute of limitations clock doesn't start running until the offense stops. The offense is ongoing, so the clock hasn't started at all.

If you kidnap someone and hold them in your basement for 20 years - you can not then go to the cops and say...I have been holding this person in captivity for 20 years, but that is OK because the statute of limitations was only 10.

I should have been more specific. It depends. That is true in some jurisdictions. In most other jurisdictions, the civil statute of limitations starts running once a party knows of, or should reasonably know of, their injury. See Stone v. Williams, 2nd Circuit, 1992.

As for the "locked up in a basement" scenario, there is a rule in the criminal law system that the statute of limitations can be waived or extended in the case of a particularly heinous crime. Realistically, there is no judge in the land who wouldn't toll (freeze) the statute of limitations to account for the time that the victim was forcibly kept in captivity. The easiest comparison to make is that of repeated child molestation incidents. In those cases, the statute of limitations doesn't start to accrue while the offenses are ongoing. The Jerry Sandusky case is a good example of this.

 paulson games wrote:
If the wrong branch of their company filed suit and that branch doesn't hold the copyright then the case would be dismissed. (as each branch is a wholely sepeprate entity) I'd assume that GW isn't that blindly stupid, but nothing surprises me with them anymore.

As I've been out of this case for some time I have no clue on this aspect, it's merely personal speculation.

While is would clear Chapterhouse in this case, having it dismissed due to a badly filed case doesn't really help us as a community. GW could come back any time they get their act together and we'd still be no closer to setting some sort of legal standing over 3rd party bits manufacturers. Though at this point, I could see why GW may want to avoid setting that sort of precendent in case it goes against them. They seem to prefer operating in a legal grey area where they can use their greater wealth to bully small operators with C&Ds.

I can't believe this thing is still going on. It'll be two years this Christmas, won't it?

2 years is nothing in a case like this. My dad has been on the expert witness list for a patent case (similar but different) for ... about half my life I think.

 G. Whitenbeard wrote:

General story Ideas are one thing. Legally copyrighted material is another.

The problem is that you cannot copyright "general story ideas," which is largely what GW tries to do. They're attempting to have their IP protections applied far more broadly than has ever been allowed by law before.

rigeld2 wrote:
2 years is nothing in a case like this. My dad has been on the expert witness list for a patent case (similar but different) for ... about half my life I think.

Property cases here, disputes over where the government wants to build stuff sometimes end only when the owner of said property dies or runs out of funds.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Here's a headline I would like to see:

"In a freak twist, the Frank Herbert Estate sues Games Workshop for stealing a huge portion of their games "backstory" from the Dune universe."

Except Frank's son has tossed out so much of his dad's backstory with these recent retcon novels he made up that they may not have a case.

algesan wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Here's a headline I would like to see:

"In a freak twist, the Frank Herbert Estate sues Games Workshop for stealing a huge portion of their games "backstory" from the Dune universe."

Except Frank's son has tossed out so much of his dad's backstory with these recent retcon novels he made up that they may not have a case.

Frank's son is exhibit A in making the case that writing ability is not genetically determined...

Valete,

JohnS

Anybody read Harry Harrison's The Stainless Stell Rat? There I am the other night reading through and I come across some characters called "Psimen" and guess what? They are used to send messages psychically through space... but they can't do it whilst the ships are travelling in warpspace Hmmm... you don't think there could be a possible connection here do you?

Darn, thought there was an update

There are no updates. In the far future of the Chapterhouse lawsuit, there is only waiting.

and the laughter of the thirsting lawyers.

 poda_t wrote:

 MisterMoon wrote:
This has likely be discussed but I'm not searching through 80+ pages to find it, but would Chapterhouse be doing itself a favor if they used more dubious language in their products? Like instead of using Space Marine, they could call it Space Soldier or something. Instead of Melta-Gun, say "Heat Ray."

Using the definition of porn as "I know it when I see it" approach, just looking at CH product line, it does seem that CH is overstepping it's bounds on some stuff, others less so. But the language seems like it'd be an easy way to side step a good deal of the heat from GW.

i think the gist of the pages was that while they might call it something similar, it would not stop the lawsuit as there are still many things that are taken more or less directly from GW's IP. Take for instance the iconographic pauldrons, or the combi-weapon attachment designs. CHS has started changing some of its products' names, but that's probably got more to do with the suggestion of their attorneys than any effort to eschew the wrath of the almighty GW.

Also, this just in:

looks like GW may now also be pursuing a claim against Lucasfilm et al. for copying htier chaos cultists:

I would like to draw your attention to bottom left corner, bottom right corner and the three middle in the first two rows. Clearly, the tusken sand raiders are ripped off of GW's IP /sarcasm

Nice catch, totally wouldn't have given them a second look, Star Wars is so second nature to me I often take it for granted =P