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.

timd wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

timd wrote:


I think the CH lawyers cunning plan was to snow the deposees with lots deposition questions (and there were lots of questions) in hopes that they will be overwhelmed and not do due diligence on the questions that really matter (which the GW lawyers should have keyed them on). It would appear that the plan has worked...

Tim

so, can you provide a better suggestion of how to defend against a broad claim that specifies everythign and details nothing? If there are so many inconsistencies and broad sweeping claims, the easiest way of destroying the claim is by doing what CHS has done. Lord knows, I've seen the same attempted whenever our firm filed claims, with the liability arguments lasting as longer than four years.

I think you missed the point of my post. I was hypothesizing on what the strategy was. Never said it was not a good strategy. I think its was a very good strategy especially in light of the apparent ineptitude of GW's lawyers. They don't seem to be making a strong (professional) effort in this case.

Tim

ah, did not get that out of your post. Duly noted, but I shall redact nothing for the sake of maintaining thread integrity, though i take back the snide tone in my response.


I love how some people above are trashing CHS for it's terribad sculpts, but not one person made any mention of GW's sculpts, or casting quality. On the whole, Id say CHS is doing much better in the quality department, because you get what you expect in terms of the casts. GW? crap. Total crap. You're paying top dollar, and you're getting garage grade material done on a heroic scale, so all told I'm not exactly impressed with GW's line of finecast excrement. Let's not forget the recent GW vehicle releases. Only the IG, orks and DE have decent fliers. I find both of hte SM flying vehicles immensely offensive. I can't actually think of any person that has given the Stormraven any sort of positive review. Heavily modified versions of it look great, but the entire customer base agrees that it looked absolutely dreadful. Instead of learning from that, GW went what looks to me to be the angry birds route, failing to do any research or take customers into consideration, and slap us in the face with 1.) another ugly model that reflects the stormraven 2.) limited rule access, along with insane OTT abilities 3.) another ridiculous price tag..... The stormguppy is overpriced, has no rules for it (unless you coughed up for a copy of WD.... and with GW's rules, you be in violation of copyright laws for showing up with a photocoped page of rules for the darn thing), and the stormguppy is just plain ugly. I mean, sure, the CSM in dark vengeance are so sexy they make me drool, but the dark angels are such an eyesore.

I'm starting to get the whole feeling about this mess that GW is acting like a hipster.


EDIT:
..... oh internet... how I hate you. I have no idea how I always succeed in ending up at the top of every page...... i hate it, drives me crazy

TBH the older CHS sculpts are rather... lacking IMO. They are the style of sculpts from 20 years ago. Perhaps some of that is just the paint jobs and not seeing the items in the context of an entire model. For the most part (for me) that's mostly shoulder pads. None of them really tickle my fancy, except perhaps the exorcist pads. The Salamander upgrades in general I don't care for, but that is mostly because I just don't like the look and feel of Salamander marines in general.

Now the newer stuff CHS does are excellent. Their single models are beautiful, and their vehicle upgrades/mods are very nicely done. I can't speak to the quality of their product as I've not handled any of it. I've not heard any horror stories of their cast quality, certainly nothing like the nightmare of finecast horror stories which are still going on well over 16 months later.

CHS has very limited resources, so remodelling items or adding more items is a slow process. GW has vast resources and yet they push out shoddy products be it in design or in execution.

 Aerethan wrote:


CHS has very limited resources, so remodelling items or adding more items is a slow process. GW has vast resources and yet they push out shoddy products be it in design or in execution.

that's exactly it though. As a consumer looking for different parts, the truth is either I as the consumer am unwilling to create my own conversion, unable, lazy, lack the insight, or need to do it by bulk...... etc. Going to someone like CHS (Have bought from them, the exorcist pads need some fixing, the rims stand up just a smidgeon too far, but otherwise, reccomend them) you would expect that the quality to be lower. Going to someone like GW.... You'd expect better. Much better. But it seems like they've spent their entire budget on creating the new line of DE, and everything else wound up on the back-burner or economy version of things....

In any case, I think the moral of CHS vs GW will be that, if CHS wins, even if they have terribad sculpts of inferior quality to the army of start-ups that will flood the market in the wake of the court's decisions, CHS will probably be remembered for a long time in the gaming community for just having opened the door. And hey, who knows. CHS might be working out the kinks in how sculpting-to-casting works, whereas these new startups will have to learn like CHS everything from square 1, so we may yet come to expect much and more from CHS

 poda_t wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:


CHS has very limited resources, so remodelling items or adding more items is a slow process. GW has vast resources and yet they push out shoddy products be it in design or in execution.

that's exactly it though. As a consumer looking for different parts, the truth is either I as the consumer am unwilling to create my own conversion, unable, lazy, lack the insight, or need to do it by bulk...... etc. Going to someone like CHS (Have bought from them, the exorcist pads need some fixing, the rims stand up just a smidgeon too far, but otherwise, reccomend them) you would expect that the quality to be lower. Going to someone like GW.... You'd expect better. Much better. But it seems like they've spent their entire budget on creating the new line of DE, and everything else wound up on the back-burner or economy version of things....

In any case, I think the moral of CHS vs GW will be that, if CHS wins, even if they have terribad sculpts of inferior quality to the army of start-ups that will flood the market in the wake of the court's decisions, CHS will probably be remembered for a long time in the gaming community for just having opened the door. And hey, who knows. CHS might be working out the kinks in how sculpting-to-casting works, whereas these new startups will have to learn like CHS everything from square 1, so we may yet come to expect much and more from CHS

Don't you love it when you read something and you are on the exact same page as the person who wrote it? I couldn't agree with you more.

And I'm hopeful for CHS's future products, as the quality and designs are definitely improving. Even if someone doesn't like the design of their hover bikes, the cast quality that I've seen on them is wonderful. I do hope they do more stuff in resin as I think that metal is on its way out from companies and will likely be relegated to garage casters who don't do the quantity to facilitate plastics or resin. I also hope that the initial costs associated with injection molding drop to a point where any company with $20K can get up and running with a few molds to start.

 poda_t wrote:
I can't actually think of any person that has given the Stormraven any sort of positive review. Heavily modified versions of it look great, but the entire customer base agrees that it looked absolutely dreadful.

This made me laugh. Why? Because I built my Stormravens using CHS's true scale conversion kits!

CHS, and many of the other third parties, have both good and bad stuff. That's the neat thing about the internet, anyone can get on and try to make a buck. The good ones will stick around. I guess what really boggles my mind about GW's lawsuit is that, to me, it would be like Ford suing some guy who makes aftermarket spoilers for the Ford Mustang. Doesn't make sense, does it? I mean, when I had to buy a replacement gas cap for my truck a couple years ago, it wasn't made by GM. Should GM be suing somebody over that?

 Aerethan wrote:
TBH the older CHS sculpts are rather... lacking IMO. They are the style of sculpts from 20 years ago. Perhaps some of that is just the paint jobs and not seeing the items in the context of an entire model. For the most part (for me) that's mostly shoulder pads. None of them really tickle my fancy, except perhaps the exorcist pads. The Salamander upgrades in general I don't care for, but that is mostly because I just don't like the look and feel of Salamander marines in general.

Now the newer stuff CHS does are excellent. Their single models are beautiful, and their vehicle upgrades/mods are very nicely done. I can't speak to the quality of their product as I've not handled any of it. I've not heard any horror stories of their cast quality, certainly nothing like the nightmare of finecast horror stories which are still going on well over 16 months later.

You must have missed their latest releases then. Some chunky ass wings, a love poem to terrible '90s miniatures, and shoulder pads that looked like they were cut out of plasticard with scissors. It looked like they sent miscasts to their painter.

Topic, please. Opinions on CH sculpt quality isn't on-topic.

No real news since the last news...

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/07/2012 239 MOTION by counsel for Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to withdraw as attorney (Cooper, Bryce) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/07/2012 240 NOTICE of Motion by Bryce Allen Cooper for presentment of Winston & Strawn's motion to withdraw appearance of Catherine B. Diggins before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 9/11/2012 at 9:30 A.M. (Cooper, Bryce) (Docket Text Modified by Clerk's Office). Modified on 9/10/2012 (smm). (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/07/2012 241 NOTICE of Motion by Bryce Allen Cooper for presentment of motion to withdraw as attorney 239 before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 9/11/2012 at 09:30 AM. (Cooper, Bryce) (Entered: 09/07/2012)

09/10/2012 242 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Defendant's motion for leave to file under seal Exhibit 46 to the declaration of Thomas Kearney [dkt. no. 225 ], plaintiff's motion for leave to file redacted exhibits under seal [dkt. no. 227 ], and defendant's motion to withdraw the appearance of Catherine B. Diggins [dkt. no. 239 ] are all granted. Defendant's request for judicial notice [dkt. no. 235 ] is taken under advisement. Plaintiff's response, if any, should be contained in its summary judgment reply brief. The motion hearing date of 9/11/12 for all four motions is vacated. The parties are reminded that they must file redacted versions of their materials in the public record and complete, unredacted versions under seal. The required chambers copy and requested electronic version of the same must be complete, unredacted versions of the filings. Mailed notice. (et, ) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

That is the PACER report as of this evening for the remaining documents. Mostly book keeping type stuff.

The downside of course is that the specifics of GW's financial claims will remain under seal at this time:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.227.0.pdf

The spreadsheet which is mentioned in that particular motion would be a lot of fun if it were somehow "leaked"...anyone have family up in Cook county who would be willing to take a bribe?

The way that GW's lawyers have handled this, I still get the impression that they're just trying to stall until Chapterhouse goes belly up.

Even with Pro-Bono legal defense, this case is taking a lot of the time out of a small business owner who really needs to be overseeing everything that goes on for his company. I mean, with a small company, it isn't unlikely that this guy just stocks all of their products in a spare room and mails everything out himself.

The sparseness in new Chapterhouse releases is probably due to so much of his time being taken up by the case. Still, he seems to be doing well enough to keep fighting, and I'm glad that he can- not just for him but for all of the small businesses that GW strong arms.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
There is a big difference, in the eyes of the law, between saying; "This is a Space Marine Shoulderpad" and "This is a shoulderpad compatible with Games Workshop Space Marines".

Not really.

http://www.zagg.com/ifrogz/cases/apple-iphone-4

iPhone 4/4S Cases & Covers

No need to state that "this is compatible with".

http://www.roushperformance.com/parts/Ford-Mustang-Body-Kit-without-Wing-1999-2004.html

Ford Mustang Body Kit w/o Wing (1999-2004)

No need to state that "this is compatible with"

And of course some case law:

http://openjurist.org/411/f2d/350/volkswagenwerk-aktiengesellschaft-v-d-church

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1372669.html

And a summary of the current law in laymen's terms:

http://www.ipprospective.com/trademark-trend/a-law-report-nominative-fair-use-in-trademarks/

Since the dawn of the internet age - the disclaimers at the bottom of web pages have been found to be suitable in identifying (or making clear of a lack of) any connections with the originator of 3rd party parts. Still, since I don't recall the nominative use being contested at the Supreme Court level - it is something which they could rule as not being a valid defense. All the current cases have stopped withing their district court systems.

Interesting.

I wonder how much the law can change for different industries.

There was a big document update yesterday - though they are not available on the Recap website yet:

Date Filed # Docket Text
09/20/2012 243 REPLY by Games Workshop Limited to MOTION by Plaintiff Games Workshop Limited for summary judgment 213 (Attachments: # 1 GW Reply to Additional Material Facts, # 2 List of Exhibits, # 3 Exhibit Ex 150, # 4 Exhibit Ex 151, # 5 Exhibit Ex 152, # 6 Exhibit Ex 153, # 7 Exhibit Ex 154, # 8 Exhibit Ex 155, # 9 Exhibit Ex 156, # 10 Exhibit Ex 157, # 11 Exhibit Ex 158 - part 1, # 12 Exhibit Ex 158 - part 2, # 13 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 1, # 14 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 2, # 15 Exhibit Ex 159 - part 3, # 16 Exhibit Ex 160 - part 1, # 17 Exhibit Ex 160 - part 2, # 18 Exhibit Ex 161 - part 1, # 19 Exhibit Ex 161 - part 2, # 20 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 1, # 21 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 2, # 22 Exhibit Ex 162 - part 3, # 23 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 1, # 24 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 2, # 25 Exhibit Ex 163 - part 3, # 26 Exhibit Ex 164 - part 1, # 27 Exhibit Ex 164 - part 2, # 28 Exhibit Ex 165 - part 1, # 29 Exhibit Ex 165 - part 2)(Keener, Jason) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 244 REPLY by Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 2 Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 4 Exhibit 3 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 5 Exhibit 4 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 6 Exhibit 5 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 7 Exhibit 6 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 8 Exhibit 7 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 9 Exhibit 8 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 10 Exhibit 9 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 11 Exhibit 10 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 12 Exhibit 11 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 13 Exhibit 12 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney, # 14 Exhibit 13 to Declaration of Thomas Kearney)(Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 245 REPLY by Defendant Chapterhouse Studios LLC to motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 to Plaintiff Games Workshop's Responses to Chapterhouse's Statement of Material Facts and Chapterhouse's Response to Games Workshop's Additional Facts (Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

09/20/2012 246 DECLARATION of Gary Chalk regarding motion for summary judgment,,,,,,,,,, 208 (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A to Declaration of Gary Chalk, # 3 Exhibit B to Declaration of Gary Chalk, # 4 Exhibit C to Declaration of Gary Chalk)(Kearney, Thomas) (Entered: 09/20/2012)

I need to go through and figure out how the Recap website works before I go ahead and download the new files...unless of course someone else does first that is. Only want to do that once though, since at 10 cents a page - a few thousand pages of new documents adds up fast, and I would rather make them freely available for all as opposed to just something to read through for myself.

Recap is a firefox extension that archives and shares documents purchased from PACER. Install it and it should automagically add any pacer files you buy to its free archive.


Before you buy any let me check and see if I have pacer access through my university library.


[edit] No dice. Not much call for it up here I guess. [/edit]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Woah. Someone just added them all to recap. Was that you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That Gary Chalk declaration is dynamite! Has a copy of a letter sent to him from GW saying... hey, mind saying that you were 'work for hire' not freelance? Pretty Pretty pretty please!

4. In my experience, it is standard practice in the publishing industry that, unless
there is a written agreement to the contrary, a publisher who commissions an illustration from a
freelance artist owns only first publication rights for the artist’s illustration. After the first
publication, the copyright, including subsequent publication rights, reverts to the artist.

5. Between about 1986 and about 1989, I worked as a freelance artist for various
companies, including Games Workshop.

6. Games Workshop did not deduct income tax from the money it paid me as a
freelance artist.

7. Games Workshop did not deduct pension payments from the money it paid me as
a freelance artist.

8. I provided my own materials and supplies for the illustrations I created for Games
Workshop as a freelance artist.

9. As a freelance artist, I did not work at Games Workshop’s facilities.

10. I have never had any written agreement with Games Workshop concerning
ownership of copyrights in any of the works I created as a freelance artist.

11. I have never assigned any of my copyrights to Games Workshop.

12. Exhibit A is a copy of an illustration that Games Workshop commissioned me to
create in or about 1988. That illustration appeared in White Dwarf Magazine in or about 1988.

13. I was a freelance artist at the time I created the illustration depicted in Exhibit A.

14. I did not have a written contract, or any written agreement, with Games
Workshop concerning the illustration depicted in Exhibit A.

15. I did not assign ownership of copyright for the illustration depicted in Exhibit A
to Games Workshop.

......

"18. I have not agreed to assign any copyrights, or any other intellectual property rights, to Games Workshop."

For folks who don't have JDs. He's mentioning stuff about tax, pension payments, tools and where he worked because those are factors that point to whether or not a person is an employee or an independent contractor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Having been put to the test on its remaining claims, GW utterly fails to meet its burden of proof or show any genuine issues of fact for trial. Conceding now that certain of its copyrights were created by contractors and that it thus requires written assignments to assert those works, GW attempts to cure the issue by recently obtaining assignments. But the law is clear that a copyright claimant cannot cure its lack of standing by obtaining assignments during the lawsuit.

More troubling, it now appears that GW improperly withheld discoverable communications it had with the authors in attempting to obtain those post-litigation assignments, and then simply dropped the claims days before the deadline for dispositive motions if the authors refused to assign their rights. GW fares no better on the issue of ownership of rights in the 110 trademarks it claims CHS has infringed, relying upon never before produced, self-serving reports generated for this litigation in lieu of any evidence of senior U.S. rights.

Ouch.

And clownshoes!

A. GW Cannot Meet Its Burden To Show Ownership of All Its Alleged Works After repeatedly representing to CHS and the Court that every copyright alleged in this
case was created by GW employees (SUF 38), and objecting to discovery regarding the status of individual authors on that basis, GW now concedes that a still-unspecified number of the works were created by “freelance artists.” Nonetheless, GW argues, it should be deemed the owner of those works as well because it has what it refers to as a “general practice of collecting” “confirmatory assignments” from such individuals, and claims it has obtained such “assignments for the works here at issue.” (CHS Reply re SUF 34.)What GW fails to mention is that it only recently—and more than a year into this lawsuit—obtained those assignments. A plaintiff that does not own the property on which it sues at the time it brings suit does not have standing to sue. Gaia Techs., Inc. v. Reconversion Techs., Inc., 93 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (plaintiff’s nunc pro tunc intellectual property assignment was “not sufficient to confer standing on [plaintiff] retroactively”). “[A]n [intellectual property] assignment made over one-and-a-half years after [the] action was instituted cannot retroactively solve the standing problem that existed at the time the action was filed.” Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 2007 WL 4260489 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 24, 2007), aff’d on appeal, 281 Fed.Appx. 368 (5th Cir. 2008).

......


CHS’s independent investigation reveals that GW attempted to contact at least one of its alleged authors, Gary Chalk, multiple times, and that it dropped its copyright claims with respect to Chalk’s work only after failing to obtain his assignment. Contrary to sworn statements, GW failed to disclose the contact information in its possession and failed to produce its correspondence with Chalk.4 Compare Supp. Merrett Decl. at ¶¶ 2, 3 (“we did not withhold contact information on any of the individuals”; “Games Workshop has provided all the contact information within its control concerning its former freelancers and employees”); Opp. at 5 (GW “produced all of the information it has” about its authors) with Declaration of Gary Chalk (“Chalk Decl.”) ¶¶ 16-17, Exs. B, C (Aug. 9, 2012 email from GW’s in-house counsel to Chalk admitting possession of “an old address that we have for you”).5 It is not credible that GW managed to obtain assignments from dozens of other far-flung authors without generating any correspondence—none of which has been produced. The purported assignments should be disregarded: not only are they untimely, and insufficient to confer standing, the related communications were withheld, in violation of discovery obligations.

Damn. GW lawyers getting their rears handed to them.

I don't know how you folks handle costs down south (other than the general rule that the loser doesn't normally pay the winner's legal fees) but it looks to me like CHS lawyers are not only setting up to win the case, they are also going to go for legal fees by showing the plaintiff being frivolous, unreasonable, unresponsive, etc... The language in Kearney's most recent declaration and the various replies seems to highlight things like that.

I wouldn't want to pay the fees for the pack of partners and associates they have beavering away at this

Unfortunately, I have to fulfill my husbandly duties by accompanying my wife to a reunion this evening - however that Chalk Declaration is particularly interesting and will likely result in a stern scolding from the court.

IIRC that particular image is actually a two page spread (and if he did the one, he likely did the other side of it). While many of the icons have changed in the years following that, others have remained the same...or close enough to the same to be derivatives of that image.

Also, I think Naismith was one of the other freelancers that they weren't able to get a letter from...he is working with Mantic right now, correct?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regarding "Looser pays" systems...

The bar has been set fairly high on that now, I forget the specific case, late 1990s IIRC - but the Supremes weighed in on the issue...and now it almost takes gross misconduct in order to win attorney fees on either side of the issue.

Yeah he's doing concept art and sculpting for them.


Re: Fees -- I've been doing some very surface research:
http://www.cyberlawcentral.com/2010/04/12/awarding-of-attorneys-fees-for-copyright-cases-not-automatic/

And Patry (his book gets quoted in the motions)
http://williampatry.blogspot.ca/2005/12/reasonable-attorneys-fees.html

http://williampatry.blogspot.ca/2008/03/attorneys-fees-and-objectively.html

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Also, I think Naismith was one of the other freelancers that they weren't able to get a letter from...he is working with Mantic right now, correct?

He does Freelance for Mantic, On The Lamb, Gangfight Games, and likely a few others. Great chap, and really speedy turnaround.

Contrary to sworn statements, GW failed to disclose the contact information in its possession and failed to produce its correspondence with Chalk

Is it just me or is this line something that will really PO the judge? GW trying (poorly) to cover up that it was purposefully omitting evidence that didn't support them seems like they're SOL for this case. Shame it sounds like CHS will have an uphill fight asking for attorney fees, as I think that added financial dropkick might help faster institute the changes some were hoping would come out of the GW v CHS suit.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

Contrary to sworn statements, GW failed to disclose the contact information in its possession and failed to produce its correspondence with Chalk

Is it just me or is this line something that will really PO the judge? GW trying (poorly) to cover up that it was purposefully omitting evidence that didn't support them seems like they're SOL for this case. Shame it sounds like CHS will have an uphill fight asking for attorney fees, as I think that added financial dropkick might help faster institute the changes some were hoping would come out of the GW v CHS suit.

CHS probably aren't too bothered about attorney fees, given they've got pro bono representation.

CHS' lawyers might want to get fees from the court, mind you

 darkPrince010 wrote:

Contrary to sworn statements, GW failed to disclose the contact information in its possession and failed to produce its correspondence with Chalk

Is it just me or is this line something that will really PO the judge? GW trying (poorly) to cover up that it was purposefully omitting evidence that didn't support them seems like they're SOL for this case. Shame it sounds like CHS will have an uphill fight asking for attorney fees, as I think that added financial dropkick might help faster institute the changes some were hoping would come out of the GW v CHS suit.

If the allegation is true, it hurts the credibility of everything they put in front of the judge. In my jurisdiction, dicking around like that in discovery will get you nailed to the wall and it's a constant worry that your client will hide something and make you look like an donkey-cave. But we have an incredibly broad disclose everything remotely relevant automatically standard, instead of a 'only what the other side asks for or you intend to rely on' standard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:

Contrary to sworn statements, GW failed to disclose the contact information in its possession and failed to produce its correspondence with Chalk

Is it just me or is this line something that will really PO the judge? GW trying (poorly) to cover up that it was purposefully omitting evidence that didn't support them seems like they're SOL for this case. Shame it sounds like CHS will have an uphill fight asking for attorney fees, as I think that added financial dropkick might help faster institute the changes some were hoping would come out of the GW v CHS suit.

CHS probably aren't too bothered about attorney fees, given they've got pro bono representation.

CHS' lawyers might want to get fees from the court, mind you

Yeah, the amount of billable hours they are throwing down on this thing, they'll ask for fees.

CHS will want to be paid out for court fees and disbursements though - gak like filing fees, airplane flights to the UK for discovery, photocopying and what not usually aren't always covered under pro bono.

czakk wrote:

If the allegation is true, it hurts the credibility of everything they put in front of the judge. In my jurisdiction, dicking around like that in discovery will get you nailed to the wall and it's a constant worry that your client will hide something and make you look like an donkey-cave. But we have a disclose everything remotely relevant automatically standard, instead of a 'only what you ask for' standard.

Officially, I believe the same more or less holds true here - for the most part. GW should disclose everything that they need to prove all aspects of their case right from the get go. For example, the claim to the shoulder pad design should not have been laid out as they did...basically, they stole our stuff...rather:

We contend that CHS stole our shoulder pad design.

Our shoulder pad design was designed by Jes Goodwin in 1988 and was first sold as part of our Uber Marines plastic kits. See Exhibit 1.

If you look at other more substantial copyright cases layout their claims in that manner. CHS on the other hand only needs to show what they are asked to show. Goes towards that whole no incriminating yourself schtick that we have down here. Over the years though, it has largely descended into something else. Oh, we had no idea you would want to see that. Well, we thought that that would be assumed. Why would you need to know that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

czakk wrote:

CHS will want to be paid out for court fees and disbursements though - gak like filing fees, airplane flights to the UK for discovery, photocopying and what not usually aren't always covered under pro bono.

Not sure on their specific arrangement. The specifics of any pro bono representation will be decided case by case by the parties involved. Should Winston & Strawn win...and win big though, it would be well worth their costs in terms of the advertising value which is gained from the case. Plus, there are significant tax benefits to pro bono work (forget the exact filing for it though).

Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but does anyone really think GW will learn any lessons from this even if they do lose? I have a sneaking suspicion that they would just change a few words around to create "new" Trademarks sufficiently different from the ones they failed to defend in court, then file them properly this time and continue bullying 3rd party companies with C&Ds.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Perhaps I'm just a pessimist, but does anyone really think GW will learn any lessons from this even if they do lose? I have a sneaking suspicion that they would just change a few words around to create "new" Trademarks sufficiently different from the ones they failed to defend in court, then file them properly this time and continue bullying 3rd party companies with C&Ds.

And third parties could produce similar items under the old un-trademarked names. ?

I am still apalled that fraud (like accusing someone of copyright infringement then after a year trying to get the copyright) and false oaths by GW lawyers are totally okay for the judge. GW lawyers wouldn't have a chance in German courts.

czakk wrote:That Gary Chalk declaration is dynamite! Has a copy of a letter sent to him from GW saying... hey, mind saying that you were 'work for hire' not freelance? Pretty Pretty pretty please!

I didn't see this line in the quotes, could someone show me where it is, or where the contents of the letter are, etc?

 RiTides wrote:

czakk wrote:That Gary Chalk declaration is dynamite! Has a copy of a letter sent to him from GW saying... hey, mind saying that you were 'work for hire' not freelance? Pretty Pretty pretty please!

I didn't see this line in the quotes, could someone show me where it is, or where the contents of the letter are, etc?

It's in the exhibits filed with the declaration:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.3.pdf

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.3.pdf


Looking at the letter, note the way the request is framed and how it deliberately leaves out the chapterhouse litigation. But they didn't start asking artists in these letters until after the litigation started and as a response to discovery requests / the copyright challenges.

Oh, we just happen to be doing some archiving work, oh it's hard work and we've lost some old documents yadda yadda yadda...

Alan Merret isn't a lawyer as far as I know, but he sure as gak didn't draft that without having his counsel advise him on it. The 'we've lost old documents' line is a big trust and ethical issue. Clients lose old documents all the time (expecially gak as old as from 1988), and sometimes you need to backdate things or reconstruct, or go to court and do a rescission, rectification or whatever. But writing a letter like that as a lawyer if those old documents didn't actually exist back in the day, or if you are mischaracterizing the relationship that did exist... You only get to sell your professional reputation once and it is never worth it to do so.

 Kroothawk wrote:
I am still apalled that fraud (like accusing someone of copyright infringement then after a year trying to get the copyright) and false oaths by GW lawyers are totally okay for the judge. GW lawyers wouldn't have a chance in German courts.

Games Workshop: Robbing people blind with our prices, and suing people to death for infringing copyrights we don't actually own.

czakk wrote:
It's in the exhibits filed with the declaration:

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.3.pdf

That's awesome, thanks

(Although I think you posted the same link twice)

You are right, I did. The second link is just a forwarded email from GW's lawyer.

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.246.4.pdf

Thanks

Also, I was really surprised to see meltaguns up for sale on GW's site, along with chapter-specific shoulder pads.

I know I'm probably way behind the curve, but this change in practice is probably due to the lawsuit, right?

They're at the bottom of this page:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCats.jsp?catId=cat440161a&rootCatGameStyle=

And lots of upgrade packs for the new chaos release:
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/armySubUnitCatsLarge.jsp?catId=cat440160a&rootCatGameStyle=

So, this is definitely a good thing to have come from all this- GW being forced to offer products for what they claim rights to, to try to back up / support those claims. And they end up supporting their product lines better at the same time... imagine that

Hopefully we'll see full releases for all items in a codex in one wave, as seems to be the case, too.

Nah, box'o'meltaguns has been available for years.