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.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Next, the Finelawyers™ will claim GW being a church needing special protection for their religious symbols

They don't have the Church of Sigmar in Germany? Damn things are all over the place here.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
If I understand that correctly;

A Tactical Squad box set costs them 7.70 to make
They charge 55% retail to FLGS
They make $12.78 per Space Marine box profit
They sold 1692 units in the United States
They made $21,623 dollars off Tactical Squad boxes in 2006 in the United States

Is that right--or am I reading the sales sheet wrong?

What? No way that can be even close to right. They have something like 1300 retailers in North America. There's no way they'd sell this few boxes; tactical marines must be one of their most sold products.

 Crimson wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
If I understand that correctly;

A Tactical Squad box set costs them 7.70 to make
They charge 55% retail to FLGS
They make $12.78 per Space Marine box profit
They sold 1692 units in the United States
They made $21,623 dollars off Tactical Squad boxes in 2006 in the United States

Is that right--or am I reading the sales sheet wrong?

What? No way that can be even close to right. They have something like 1300 retailers in North America. There's no way they'd sell this few boxes; tactical marines must be one of their most sold products.

Agreed. I know that the $7.70 to make is very wrong. Also, I agree that 1692 units for a multi-million dollar company is also wrong. That doesn't add up.

 Crimson wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
If I understand that correctly;

A Tactical Squad box set costs them 7.70 to make
They charge 55% retail to FLGS
They make $12.78 per Space Marine box profit
They sold 1692 units in the United States
They made $21,623 dollars off Tactical Squad boxes in 2006 in the United States

Is that right--or am I reading the sales sheet wrong?

What? No way that can be even close to right. They have something like 1300 retailers in North America. There's no way they'd sell this few boxes; tactical marines must be one of their most sold products.

That information was from the year that they were moving around both the warehousing and the manufacturing. What we see is a snapshot of the units which were fulfilled from the new location in Memphis as opposed to the old location (Baltimore IIRC...though there was a period where they were trying 3 warehouses in the US...though it is a bit foggy).

Now...if they still happened to have a friend who worked there who could access that information...and leak it for more recent years... I am sure many people would be very happy...

Those numbers might not be complete reflecting only some portion of direct sales. Direct sales to individuals and wholesalers and distributors might not be covered in this.

What? No way that can be even close to right. They have something like 1300 retailers in North America. There's no way they'd sell this few boxes; tactical marines must be one of their most sold products.

The numbers from that sheet are, from what I was informed, Direct Sales numbers not retail numbers. I'm just not sure if they include Canada and Australia numbers.

Agreed. I know that the $7.70 to make is very wrong. Also, I agree that 1692 units for a multi-million dollar company is also wrong. That doesn't add up.

As of this report being run back in 2006 that was the cost taken directly from the Access queries used in Direct Sales year end sales report. That was the cost of all the components, boxes, foam, etc used in packing the finished goods (including time). Anyone in the Direct Sales dept is trained to run it and any other Access report in DS.

If you are saying that is not correct, then GW's inventory control and inventory accounting has been way off for many years.

Wait - Access? Really?

...

That's literally amazing to me.

rigeld2 wrote:
Wait - Access? Really?

...

That's literally amazing to me.

Really? I kinda like Access. All of the queries into the inventory control system were pretty easy to make. I can't remember the name of the inventory control system they used (or still might be using) I think it was something like Tetra Line Client (or something like that).

prplehippo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Wait - Access? Really?

...

That's literally amazing to me.

Really? I kinda like Access. All of the queries into the inventory control system were pretty easy to make. I can't remember the name of the inventory control system they used (or still might be using) I think it was something like Tetra Line Client (or something like that).

When I read Access I think Microsoft Access - am I misunderstanding?

Using Access still isn't unheard of. Not every business has moved to SQL. There are some benefits to using Access over SQL in that those who know Excel functionality can usually pick up Access syntax fairly easily, and they both use VBA for macros.

That being said SQL isn't the hardest thing in the world to read and understand, but you wouldn't be able to make effective queries just from being able to read it.

Were those sheets something they pulled from a query to get all the product codes and name for you to put a Qty you wanted on? Or were they compiled after the fact at the end of the month to show total units sold? If the latter I find it odd they couldn't separate out by region and what not. That kind of data label should be floating around in the database somewhere.

 Atma01 wrote:
Using Access still isn't unheard of. Not every business has moved to SQL. There are some benefits to using Access over SQL in that those who know Excel functionality can usually pick up Access syntax fairly easily, and they both use VBA for macros.

That being said SQL isn't the hardest thing in the world to read and understand, but you wouldn't be able to make effective queries just from being able to read it.

Were those sheets something they pulled from a query to get all the product codes and name for you to put a Qty you wanted on? Or were they compiled after the fact at the end of the month to show total units sold? If the latter I find it odd they couldn't separate out by region and what not. That kind of data label should be floating around in the database somewhere.

Unless you put a lot of time and love into Access (in which case - why not just use a real RDBMS) it does do well in a multi user environment. Too easy to corrupt the database, horrible permissions required to be able to use the database in the first place, etc.
Our locksmith shop's software uses Access as a backend. We get a work order about once a week because the database is "missing" (one of them deleted it), "corrupt" (actually corrupt for some reason, or has old data because yay old session finally saving) or some other issue. Unfortunately this is a vendor software issue, but once this contract is out we aren't going to let them renew it.

It's possible they've moved on and don't use Access anymore, it's been 6 years since I worked there.

I did talk to a few people I know that are still there about how things are now, but no one is talking but I did find out a number of staff were talked to about leaking information to outside sources and given the "Tennessee is an At Will employment state" threat.

 Atma01 wrote:
Were those sheets something they pulled from a query to get all the product codes and name for you to put a Qty you wanted on? Or were they compiled after the fact at the end of the month to show total units sold? If the latter I find it odd they couldn't separate out by region and what not. That kind of data label should be floating around in the database somewhere.

There were countless types of reports that can be run, you can also filter out specific data as well. Direct Sales had their own reports, the mold dept had theirs, packing had theirs etc. You can find out anything from just staff or internal purchases to specific customers purchases to how many box sets were made in a month to how much plastic gets used for making sprues. There is a lot of information GW tracks, you could find out just about anything you wanted to for whatever date range you needed.

But like I said, they are constantly changing and trying to improve things so it's very possible that they are using a new system and have new queries/reports now. It wouldn't surprise me if they also locked down certain information and have restricted access to those queries/reports for certain staff now.

I imagine that they have had more than a few restructures since that data was relevant. Which would make it hell to backtrack in terms of correct cost centre allocation if you are determining sales. But that being said I can't imagine that the straight up data labels for where the product ended up, either to store or to customer, would be gone. Under a different header possibly, but not gone.

That being said, if they were using Access and didn't have decent backup protocols then I can envisage the older databases having broken beyond repair or being accidentally deleted by now.

But thankyou for the info. I'm going to drop out now since this is starting to veer off topic.

I was about to make that exact point.

Thanks for getting back on topic.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was about to make that exact point.

Thanks for getting back on topic.

I apologize if you thought I was derailing the topic, that wasn't my intention. What I wanted to show was that it would be very easy to gather the information that was requested of GW, it would take then a matter of minutes to collect the data needed and sort it.

GW, IMHO, is just being evasive by saying it would be difficult to gather accurate data regarding specific sales.

Yes, the topic of sales figures is certainly relevant if GW claim business damages.

I was more referring to the discussion of the relative benefits of different database systems.

prplehippo wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I was about to make that exact point.

Thanks for getting back on topic.

I apologize if you thought I was derailing the topic, that wasn't my intention. What I wanted to show was that it would be very easy to gather the information that was requested of GW, it would take then a matter of minutes to collect the data needed and sort it.

GW, IMHO, is just being evasive by saying it would be difficult to gather accurate data regarding specific sales.

Honestly I'm sure that sales data is readily available for any large company, as it is probably the single most important data about the company. The company reports their earnings yearly, which means that at least once a year they have someone compile all of that sales data into an understandable format.

It's not like CHS was asking for their phone records from 1987. In 2012 all corporate data should be readily available, otherwise your doing it wrong and should be fired.

Fact is that GW wasn't able to provide the data intime. Nor any proof of copyrights and trademarks, only proof that none of its miniatures are protectable under UK law
That is quite ... unusual for an IP lawsuit, at least for a successful one for the plaintiff.

So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

 Yodhrin wrote:
So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

IANAL but from what I understand, that should not be an outcome of this particular lawsuit; a U.S. court cannot determine British copyright status. What's important for this case is that GW hasn't provided proof that they owned the copyrights that they claim they did at the time that they brought the lawsuit against CHS. They may very well actually have said copyright status in Britain, they just havent supplied evidence supporting that claim (yet).

Now, that may not stop others from doing exactly as you said, but they'll be betting on GW being unable to prove copyright status in a British court of law (or however GW would go about doing so).

 Yodhrin wrote:
So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

No, but they might be able to make "Resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen Compatible" non-Guardsmen. IMPERIAL GUARD is still a trademark and that has no bearing on copyright, but is the GW-exclusive name of their product line. You have to use your own trademark to market you stuff, but it is legal to use the trademark of a different company to indicate compatibility (this works with that) or to compare your product to your competitors product (my Cola is better than Coca Cola).

Mohoc wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

No, but they might be able to make "Resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen Compatible" non-Guardsmen. IMPERIAL GUARD is still a trademark and that has no bearing on copyright, but is the GW-exclusive name of their product line. You have to use your own trademark to market you stuff, but it is legal to use the trademark of a different company to indicate compatibility (this works with that) or to compare your product to your competitors product (my Cola is better than Coca Cola).

GW has also failed to provide proof that they own a significant portion of trademarks they're claiming in this case.

 Lordhat wrote:

Mohoc wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

No, but they might be able to make "Resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen Compatible" non-Guardsmen. IMPERIAL GUARD is still a trademark and that has no bearing on copyright, but is the GW-exclusive name of their product line. You have to use your own trademark to market you stuff, but it is legal to use the trademark of a different company to indicate compatibility (this works with that) or to compare your product to your competitors product (my Cola is better than Coca Cola).

GW has also failed to provide proof that they own a significant portion of trademarks they're claiming in this case.

Maybe, but that is for a judge or maybe even a jury to decide first. After the pretrial rulings and filings are done, we will know more. If I remember right, GW won't be able to introduce more evidence after the rulings. The judge will likely allow a bunch of claims from both categories to go forward and throw out a bunch of junk claims. How much he throws out, will give us a better feel for the judge and give us an estimate of how strong GWs claims really are. We will simply have to wait for the ruling to be entered in the court record system or CHS stops by on the forums and lets us know what is up with the case.

Until then, this is my last post, because we are not discussing any new developments.

 Lordhat wrote:
GW has also failed to provide proof that they own a significant portion of trademarks they're claiming in this case.

Actually they haven't provided proof of ANY trademarks and copyrights, they just retracted some where it was obvious.
GW also agrees that toy soldiers are not protectable in UK, they still desperately claim that general ideas ("skulls in the 40k universe") are or that their toy soldiers are a piece of art for collectors.

General problem for small manfacturers is not that GW actually owns the copyright on the whole world, but that GW thinks it does and tries to drag them to court if they don't agree which is too expensive for small companies.

Here some more background on the "Oops we lost our old contracts, can you please transfer all your copyrights to us again" issue.

Russ Nicholson is another artist they contacted and wanted his copyrights from. He had a laugh and didn't reply, maybe also because he was "fired" as a freelancer because he insisted on getting the fee of £200 as contracted for one of his works and GW only wanting to pay half. Full story here: http://russnicholson.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-horror-of-it-all.html

Interesting comment to that blog entry:

Simon wrote:As someone who teaches Contract & Copyright law for a living, I love that claim of their having "lost the transfer of rights"! I saw their contributor contract when I submitted (written) stuff to them ca WD 95. All they asked for was a license with single-reprint rights, certainly no transfer of copyright ownership. I think that was pretty normal in the magazine industry in the '80s; even in the USA it was still quite common for work to be published with a license rather than a transfer of copyright.

Someone also linked him to this thread, explaining why GW send this letter. Russ replied: "Thanks for that, and the link, explains a lot."

Someone should also encourage him to get in touch with CHS's legal team.

While we wait:

Mr. Justice Posner blogging about Patent and Copyright reform:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html

Mr. Justice Posner is a fairly big deal in the States, especially in law and economics circles.

If I understand your circuit court system correctly, he is also on the appeal court that would hear any appeals from this case.


And since the Apple v Samsung jury trial has been mentioned and the parties in this case have requested a jury. Sometimes juries do crazy things:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

 Lordhat wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
So, hold on then, if most of GW's current model lines are found to be unprotected, does that mean third parties could stop making not-Guardsmen and not-Space Marines, and instead start selling "resin Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" and such?

IANAL but from what I understand, that should not be an outcome of this particular lawsuit; a U.S. court cannot determine British copyright status.

Correct - however they can make a ruling to determine the status of a British Copyright in the US. If the court were to find that the copyright claims are void because in the opinion of the court they would fall under the UK Design laws (and not be eligible for copyright protection) - then that position would apply throughout the US (assuming it made it past all the appeals which would likely happen as a result). If that were to happen, then in the US...people could start selling near exact knock offs (recasting would still be illegal, however you could sculpt an exact copy) or Tallarn or other unregistered designs which are older than 10 years old (most the GW range).

Trademarks would still apply, so you would need to word the knock off a little differently, like "Compare these to Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen" as there is an actual trademark (unregistered) for "Tallarn Imperial Guardsmen".

If you are in the UK or EU - there is an actual process to challenge the design right and either force a license or have the design right revoked. I haven't been able to find out specifically whether or not a non-citizen (that is someone over here in the US or Canada) can perform a similar action under the existing law...more research and all that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

czakk wrote:

And since the Apple v Samsung jury trial has been mentioned and the parties in this case have requested a jury. Sometimes juries do crazy things:

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

That case will likely become a text book example for jury misconduct. I hope the Foreman gets a good judicial tongue lashing and then some. Between the half truths which he told to get on the jury and then the manner in which he hijacked their deliberations (and was quite proud of it in the interviews after the fact as indicated in the various interviews he gave).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

czakk wrote:

Mr. Justice Posner blogging about Patent and Copyright reform:

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2012/09/do-patent-and-copyright-law-restrict-competition-and-creativity-excessively-posner.html

Mr. Justice Posner is a fairly big deal in the States, especially in law and economics circles.

If I understand your circuit court system correctly, he is also on the appeal court that would hear any appeals from this case.

Good chance of it - normally the appeals process isn't so much a straight line though, so he may well not be one to hear the actual case (he is not a young man).

Posner's opinions on the various aspects of Copyright and Patent law largely mirror my own - and I have read a fair amount of his writing. He has also done a significant amount of work related to UK/US legal issues (think there is a book or two as well) - so this case might be right up his alley.

One thing to keep in mind though, while a judge may have an opinion or feeling regarding something like this...he needs something to hang his hat on. If the facts were to point to a win for GW - no matter how he may personally feel regarding the underlying issues of copyright law...he would have to give them the win. That is one of the reasons they write articles like that, to hopefully push legislators forward and away from the big companies like Disney and what not who have been directing copyright laws for 60 years or so.

Crikey, that story on the Apple/Samsung case is a corker eh? I actually find my faith in humanity a little restored by it; sure, it appears one total git lied his way onto a jury in order to enact some kind of personal vengeance against a former employer, and then misled the other, less technically-informed jurors, but at least that means there's a reason a group of supposedly sane and rational people would decide that "black rectangle with rounded corners" is a concept which only one corporation in the world can own or use.

Out of interest, can someone be held in contempt of court after the fact?

Off topic post voluntarily removed - Apple v Samsung has nothing to do with wargaming or the GW v CHS case.