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.

Regarding a future potential suit...

CHS may not receive pro bono representation the second go around.

GW may not be intending on filing suit in the US.

Over the past few months GW has been doing a bunch of stuff in order to strengthen various trademark claims (advertising and marketing expenditures in the way of GenCon presence...bits rereleased to satisfy the Trade aspect of trademarks...).

I wouldn't be surprised if they file suit in a Eurozone backwater (or Germany...I understand they can be very vicious relating to IP cases). A win in a far flung location which is still part of the EU would allow them to leverage a ban on CHS products in the zone and possibly work into the US market depending on how cooperative the courts want to be at the time.

Seems like real and substantial connection / forum non conveniens and the civil law equivalent (which I think uses the residence of the defendant) would be in favour of CHS if it did show up outside of the US. Although I could be wrong about that civil stuff, it's been a while.

From the other thread that probably should have been posted here:

czakk wrote:
GW doesn't seem like they intend to stop with C&Ds and lawsuits even if CH wins - GW intends to sue Chapterhouse again for products produced after the lawsuit started. (http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.250.0.pdf - page 15).

After reading that, it seems that GW's lawyers are actually now trying to earn their pay for a change. Of course it could also indicate a bit of desperation and that grasping at straws is the new tactic in this case.

Tim

Now as a layman that reads as though GW are asking the judge to not allow CHS to defend itself. So I guessing most of that will be thrown out pretrial? Though will the judge not view even asking for that in a very dim light? Also are CHS lawyers allowed to make reference to GWs attempt to stymie CHS defense to the jury? I'm sure not a lot of people would be impressed with seeing what GW asked for.

I doubt the judge will view this motion in a dim light. Stuff like this seems fairly typical. The judge will likely only have a problem if GW persists after being ruled against (should that happen).

On the issue of concurrent litigation, I'm not sure how the courts handle that.

 Breotan wrote:

On the issue of concurrent litigation, I'm not sure how the courts handle that.

In very very general terms concurrent litigation or subsequent litigation raises a couple of issues in the common law world - joinder, and res judicata. How they actually apply will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but I can give general definitions.

Joinder are the rules that cover the what claims and parties can be joined together into a single lawsuit. The policy view behind the rules of joinder is that the interests of society and litigants are best served by one lawsuit instead of multiple lawsuits. It's cheaper for the litigants and uses up way less court time and resources. If a plaintiff has a number of claims that are factually or legally similar or related to each other it also prevents contradictory or inconsistent findings by different courts. If you hit three people with your car at an intersection, it makes sense to have one trial instead of three trials.

In this case you have GW mentioning a future suit that involves the same parties and very similar issues. If the case was just starting it would make sense from a cost and time perspective to join the causes of action and have one trial. Why do discovery twice, all the pretrial motions twice and so on and so on. On the other hand this case is almost at trial. Adding a bunch of new claims at the last minute might mean redoing discovery etc.. I don't know US fed court civil procedure but there is likely a rule or limitation that prevents it. (and strategically since CHS is making a big deal about evidence coming in after the close of discovery, allowing discovery to open up again would be a mistake). If they brought a new suit, the sensible thing to do would be to delay / stay it until the current case was concluded.

Res judicata is a doctrine that prevents the relitigation of matters already decided - it is supposed to relieve parties of the annoyance and cost of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources and encourage reliance on adjudication. It has two limbs, cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel. Cause of action estoppel is pretty simple, it prevents a cause of action from being re-argued (bringing another suit for copyright infringement on any of the CHS kits in GWs complaint for example). Issue estoppel stops parties from relitigating a particular issue (facts, or points of law). Res judicata concerns frequently trigger joinder of claims or parties.

I believe that you folks in the US have non-mutual issue estoppel, which means that issues decided in this case will carry over not just to future gw v chs cases but any other case brought in the US by GW that covers the same issues.

That little bit in GWs filing where they say we don't want any new chapterhouse products mentioned and we don't want any of our copyrights or products that we've dropped mentioned is in part about the jury and in part is an attempt to prevent res judicata applying to any future suit. Some stuff will still get caught. If the court makes a factual finding that certain artists were independent contractors, that will carry forward to a later suit between the parties that involves that same issue. I'm not sure how something a finding that GW failed to prove commercial use of a trademark would be handled. If GW gets an unfavourable decision in this current case they can try to argue around it's application in another jurisdiction or try to mold the facts to avoid its application (try to dodge stare decisis) but res judicata is far stricter than stare decisis. A later (maybe foreign) court that might ignore, change or overturn the fed court's judgement will still be unlikely to touch anything covered by res judicata.

Especially a UK court, they take that gak seriously. If for example the US Fed Court rules that Lucasfilm applies and GW doesn't have copyright and GW brings a suit against CHS in the UK, the UK court might ignore the fed court decision (say they got the law wrong) for other products or other plaintiffs but they won't allow GW to relitigate (against CHS) the products and copyrights covered by the federal court lawsuit. That gak is settled as far as they are concerned even though in this hypothetical the UK court is of the opinion that the Fed Court got the law wrong.

I guess another important point is that res judicata doesn't apply to the appeals process. An appeal is the proper forum to challenge a judgement.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Regarding a future potential suit...

CHS may not receive pro bono representation the second go around.

GW may not be intending on filing suit in the US.

Over the past few months GW has been doing a bunch of stuff in order to strengthen various trademark claims (advertising and marketing expenditures in the way of GenCon presence...bits rereleased to satisfy the Trade aspect of trademarks...).

I wouldn't be surprised if they file suit in a Eurozone backwater (or Germany...I understand they can be very vicious relating to IP cases). A win in a far flung location which is still part of the EU would allow them to leverage a ban on CHS products in the zone and possibly work into the US market depending on how cooperative the courts want to be at the time.

I do not believe that GW will pursue another suit against CHS because I believe that the corporation can not afford another long term suit.
This reasoning is bolstered by the continual cost cutting efforts (such as the reduction of store hours in the UK which people should take notice as that is the crown jewel of the corporation) being implemented. As far as filing other suits in other countries? That is possible however this corporation does everything as cheaply as possible and I don't see anything different or any change from this mindset.

Like many, such as myself who have said over the years. The key to growth for GW to have a broad base licensing program for third party companies. Over the years I've been involved in licensing product. This is not hard to do.

Let's hope reason prevails and both parties settle amicably so that financial resources can be made creating quality content.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:
I do not believe that GW will pursue another suit against CHS because I believe that the corporation can not afford

If they win the lawsuit, the money that is spent is considered an asset to be amoritized not as an expense, so it won't look bad on the financial statements (Which is really the only thing that is important). GW has the cash in the bank to absorb the costs.

 Adam LongWalker wrote:

I do not believe that GW will pursue another suit against CHS because I believe that the corporation can not afford another long term suit.
This reasoning is bolstered by the continual cost cutting efforts (such as the reduction of store hours in the UK which people should take notice as that is the crown jewel of the corporation) being implemented. As far as filing other suits in other countries? That is possible however this corporation does everything as cheaply as possible and I don't see anything different or any change from this mindset.

Like many, such as myself who have said over the years. The key to growth for GW to have a broad base licensing program for third party companies. Over the years I've been involved in licensing product. This is not hard to do.

Let's hope reason prevails and both parties settle amicably so that financial resources can be made creating quality content.

Actually - at this point, the future suit must go forward. There are laws in the US that says you can not say you will sue someone...and then not (roughly speaking). They have said they are planning a future suit in official court filings - so either they have to go forward with the suit or they stand exposed to being held liable for not suing. Specific laws involved will largely depend on how CHS would like to go forward. They can look into declaratory judgements or possibly look at filing under other local, State or Federal laws which govern "legal threats" - some of which go all the way up to tie ins on the extortion and black mail statutes.

The reason they will likely not seek to sue in the US again are covered fairly well by Czakk - they are unlikely to attempt to sue in the UK, even though there is a certain home court advantage because of the ruling in the LucasFilm case. It is probably that they will use a smaller Eurozone country (who they could probably demonstrate jurisdiction with because of sales information they got through discovery in this case...which is unethical and in many cases illegal).

Czakk well and good covered issues relating to concurrent litigation (or in this case probably sequential) for the US. The only thing I would add is that if they choose not to appeal the ruling within this case they can in theory proceed with a suit in the US under a different district. Although there are not specific hard and fast laws which define it, in the US we have vertical and lateral (not sure if that is the correct "academic" term) res judicata. In the case of vertical res judicata - a case which has been heard by a higher court will likely be used to influence a lower court case directly as settled law. If the case is dealt with only by a court of similar standing (District 7 versus District 8 for example) it has a lesser impact on the court. A judge can take it under consideration, or he can choose to ignore it completely.

The big problem though is that courts tend not to like companies which bring multiple lawsuits against the same defendant for effectively the same case. Sort of an if mommy says no, ask daddy type situation. Unless they can demonstrate substantial differences between the two cases. Which is hard to imagine substantial differences...it will mostly be "They copied our X" instead of "They copied our Z". Considering that a plurality of CHS items have been on the complaints list, the court will likely find that they should have been part of this case as opposed to the attempt to overwhelm CHS with legal fees. That opens GW up for abuse of process or malicious prosecution claims which could have HUGE impacts on how GW is allowed to do business in the US (the court can actually revoke the right of GW to defend their IP in the worst case scenario).

Is that as grey of an area as it appears to a non-lawyer? Specifically, the res judicata--is it entirely judicial discretion that they feel res judicata applies in a future suit (and where it does not). As an example;

GW sues CH for the sale of its "Not Eldar"
GW loses
CH produces another model called "Not Dark Eldar"
GW brings suit again due to the new violation (which while in spirit is like the first case--the new model warrants a new case)

If that's the case, wouldn't the most successful strategy for a company as large as GW be to simply be done with the current case, bring suit after suit waiting until CH cannot get free (or afford) proper representation?

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Is that as grey of an area as it appears to a non-lawyer? Specifically, the res judicata--is it entirely judicial discretion that they feel res judicata applies in a future suit (and where it does not). As an example;

GW sues CH for the sale of its "Not Eldar"
GW loses
CH produces another model called "Not Dark Eldar"
GW brings suit again due to the new violation (which while in spirit is like the first case--the new model warrants a new case)

If that's the case, wouldn't the most successful strategy for a company as large as GW be to simply be done with the current case, bring suit after suit waiting until CH cannot get free (or afford) proper representation?

Which is were abuse of process and malicious prosecution come into play. Judicial discretion regarding lateral cases will only go so far. If they get on the wrong side of the court, very bad things happen.

Wow. GW's sales have seriously dropped over the past couple of years. Given the price increases, I'd guess that number of shipping units is down 30%.

 frozenwastes wrote:
If I were to be summoned for jury duty, I would go, but I would inform the court that I intend to exercise my right to practice jury nullification if I deem it necessary. And that I would explain to my fellow jurors what their rights are related to jury nullification as well.

I can't imagine a prosecutor who would ever let me sit as part of the jury after hearing that.

I definitely don't support juries for civil cases. The people deciding those need to be experts on the applicable law, not just whomever can be swayed by either side's narrative the most.

Which defacto means you are trying to get an excuse to get tossed from actually serving on a jury. Jury nullification is a good thing, but sometimes the sucker is just guilty and if you actually want to have a chance to use it effectively, then you have to actually be sitting on a jury when a case that needs it comes up. You won't be, so your knowledge and will to use jury nullification is worthless.

Also, does anyone have any idea what Exhibit E is supposed to mean?

There are things in there like The Alamo, Alexander the Great, Route 666, American Meat? A lot of those have nothing to do with GW.

clively wrote:
Also, does anyone have any idea what Exhibit E is supposed to mean?

There are things in there like The Alamo, Alexander the Great, Route 666, American Meat? A lot of those have nothing to do with GW.

The first 2 are Warhammer Ancients /Historics books iirc. Not sure about the others.

clively wrote:
Also, does anyone have any idea what Exhibit E is supposed to mean?

There are things in there like The Alamo, Alexander the Great, Route 666, American Meat? A lot of those have nothing to do with GW.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a printout of sales data
produced by GW at GW0011031, which it seeks to introduce as proposed GW Trial Exhibit 371,
“Black Library Sales Data – 2007-08.”

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.251.1.pdf - page 2

It is entered in as evidence for CHS en limine motions, and apparently you are not the only one confused:

Because they were all produced for the first time after the close of fact discovery and
depositions, CHS had no opportunity to depose GW about any of those sales summaries,
including the discredited Tr. Ex. 216. This late production is particularly prejudicial because it
involves spreadsheets that are incomprehensible to anyone outside GW. See, e.g., Tr. Ex. 371,
“Black Library Sales Data – 2007-08 (Golinveaux Decl., Ex. E). Moreover, “[t]here is no way
for this Court to know that this alleged sales sheet bears any relation to reality . . . [as it is]
simply something Plaintiff[] generated on a [] computer for the purposes of this litigation.”

http://ia600405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.251.0.pdf - page 5

Although I don't necessarily think it is quite that confusing, I do have some background dealing with reports like those - so they are somewhat easier to decipher. However, in terms of this case - their point is valid... What the Hell? Prove it.

One other thing that popped into my head as well when thinking back on reports like that is that while they might be truthful...they are not necessarily accurate in the grand scheme of things. As the listing states, it is Black Library Sales Data (or at least claimed to be). The problem though is that it only covers a short period of time. This is exceptionally problematic because of the manner in which the book trade does its business. If I am a distributor for Black Library, I might order up a hundred copies of their latest book. I then sell those off to the various retail book stores and they sit on shelves for a bit (not to mention the ones sitting in my warehouse). After a given time - which may in fact be longer than the period reported on in the report, the book stores come back to me and say "We ordered 70 books and only sold 20 - we want credit for the unsold books". I credit their account and they destroy the books which they have in their possession (some companies have them ship back the front covers to get credit...though that varies from store to store and by distributor). I then go back to GW and say, we bought 100 books and I had to credit my retail network for 50 books and I have 30 left in my warehouse. I'll keep 5 of those for special orders, but I want credit for 75 books which I couldn't sell.

That is why a lot of the entries in the list show a negative entry under the units and revenue columns.

Also...there was a branch of GW's publishing arm, Black Library which was called Black Flame for a period of time (not sure if they are still in existence or if they have been sold off or shut down - would need to dig more). Books produced under that branch are listed as "NOVEL BF REGULAR" in the list and include titles like "American Meat"

http://www.amazon.com/American-Meat-Future-Stuart-Moore/dp/1844162990

Part of the "Dark Future" series by Stuart Moore for that particular one. There are others by other authors which are set in that particular universe...Route 666 was written by Kim Newman for example in the same setting.

I like how the CH lawyers are pushing to have all of Nick's online comments barred from being admissable. Probably due to his numerous references of developing several products as parts for eldar or marines etc. Those posts would be damaging to CH with any jury as it's a lot of open mouth insert foot style postings, plus rudeness and hostility aren't going to color things any better. I'm curious to see how the judge will rule as the forums posts are publically acessable infomation. It also explains why his legal team is so focused on contesting ownership of the designs (GW vs individual artist) as he's openly admitted to making derivative parts which damages a lot of potential defenses they could otherwise raise.

Both sides of course are pushing for things to make them look the most favorable, interesting to see what the judge will allow or disallow.

In general the paperwork i's some boring stuff although the strategy and posistioning dance is interesting enough I may go watch the trial.

Certain language used might not be flattering, however most of it doesn't seem exceptionally damaging to me at least. The issue which I would have with admitting that in as evidence is more as it regards to relevance. GW had their opportunity to depose Nick for several hours - if he gave statements that could be refuted by forum posts, then those posts are relevant to the case. If not, the deposition should be sufficient evidence as well as any questioning which they may or may not be able to do in court. Although there are some wiggly things, which are done with a wink and a nod - I don't think anything in particular was done which would impeach his credibility in terms of the court.

At that point though, you would need to be able to demonstrate a chain of custody on the "evidence". Again, while it isn't necessarily likely - was his account hacked, was he the one who made the posts, were the posts altered by anyone who might have been a moderator on the website it was found on? The SCA places that determination with the judge in each case - both whether or not the information is relevant and then whether or not the information is reliable. I would assume it is reliable, as there is little reason for someone to hack an account and make the posts - the relevance, as I said would only be in order to impeach Nick's credibility if the posts contradict his deposition or testimony.

I don't really think this will come down to a question of whether or not parts are made for Eldar or Space Marines. I know a lot of people like to make that argument, but the law is fairly clear in numerous instances that you can make stuff for other peoples stuff.

The question doesn't even relate to using GW products in order to ensure proper fitment. For example, it would be difficult to design an iPhone case without having an iPhone in hand to make sure it fits properly.

The bigger question (assuming Design Rights are discounted) is are things like the GW shoulder pad design unique enough to be protected, and further if the combination of common symbols and other design elements on a shoulder pad protectable.

The use of the Trademarks goes back to whether or not the court (or jury if it makes it past the summary judgement phase) believes that their is confusion created by the manner in which they are used and whether or not the item can be identified without using the Trademark of another company.

Again, the example of an iPhone case. Try to imagine a way which you could market an iPhone case without calling it an "iPhone Case". That uses a trademark which is owned by Apple - but it doesn't attempt to make a claim on the mark. In a similar way, we can find all sorts of shoulder pads made by dozens of companies which are not sold as "Space Marine Shoulder Pads" - though it is merely through familiarity that people know what they are for. To the untrained eye, a nominative use of the trademarked term "Space Marine" and the generic term "Shoulder Pads" may well be deemed as fair use of the Trademark.

The question which the jury will need to answer than comes to confusion. Do people think that CHS is producing "official" GW products like you might get through Forgeworld or is it understood that they sell third party products?

Contesting ownership is the base level of any legal case. Before the case moves forward, the plaintiff has to prove that they have grounds to sue someone. I can't sue my neighbor because his dog pooped on a different neighbor yard. I don't have any standing. If GW can't demonstrate that they own a design or have used a Trademark - then they have no standing and no case.

It is interesting though that it seems like amateur night in many ways at GW in that they are having a difficult time in meeting that base level of proof though. From not having employee records to not having contracts for freelance artists and not even being able to pull up a sales receipt for a given item or set of items which prove that they were sold in the US. All of these are basic elements of doing business.

The iPhone or other aftermarket items are a differant legal area then what GW is trying to prove, GW is going largely after things as derivative works and deceptive trademark use.

GW needs to sell the jury that their items are "artwork" and thus protected by that set of laws, which normally don't apply to things like aftermarket car parts or iPhone cases.


The webforum stuff becomes important when establishing a pattern that he intended to make deriviative works, especially if there are internal emails with his artists expressing simular wordage. It'd be a very weak arguement by itself but when combined with other more verifiable communications it lends extra weight that it's not a single instance but part of a larger pattern of opperation. It helps paint a picture of how the company targets their market and overall mindset.

If discovery turned up internal information which show deliberate deriviative efforts then the strategy would be to defeat the root ownership as they would be unable to claim they were unintentionally creating a deriviative work.

As Nick openly commuincated as such on public forum it doesn't take much imagination to assume that he communicated in the same manner internally within the company. Assuming that information is found during discovery (which is sealed at this point) then it's very damaging.

If the public posts are also allowed he basically sunk part of his defence before the suit even started. Thus their focus is going to be on weakening the chain of ownership and hoping to invalidate it.

Much like how defence lawyers opperate in criminal cases, if you have a client that's guilty by their own admission you attack the chain of custody for police evidence and look for technical loopholes that you can get the case dismissed for.

Sean_OBrien wrote:...
Contesting ownership is the base level of any legal case. Before the case moves forward, the plaintiff has to prove that they have grounds to sue someone. I can't sue my neighbor because his dog pooped on a different neighbor yard. I don't have any standing. If GW can't demonstrate that they own a design or have used a Trademark - then they have no standing and no case.

It is interesting though that it seems like amateur night in many ways at GW in that they are having a difficult time in meeting that base level of proof though. From not having employee records to not having contracts for freelance artists and not even being able to pull up a sales receipt for a given item or set of items which prove that they were sold in the US. All of these are basic elements of doing business.

paulson games wrote:The iPhone or other aftermarket items are a differant legal area then what GW is trying to prove, GW is going largely after things as derivative works and deceptive trademark use.

GW needs to sell the jury that their items are "artwork" and thus protected by that set of laws, which normally don't apply to things like aftermarket car parts or iPhone cases.


The webforum stuff becomes important when establishing a pattern that he intended to make deriviative works, especially if there are internal emails with his artists expressing simular wordage. It'd be a very weak arguement by itself but when combined with other more verifiable communications it lends extra weight that it's not a single instance but part of a larger pattern of opperation. It helps paint a picture of how the company targets their market and overall mindset.

Sean quite elegantly points out the great flaw with both GW and a number of their boosters understanding of the proceedings: it's not in the least clear that GW ever had standing to enforce a large number of the claims they have made over the years.

By way of analogue, consider the following fact pattern:

-I take a sledgehammer outside and smash the ever-loving heck out of a nearby sedan.

-Everyone sees it, and I post a video of myself on youtube to brag.

-George White (call him GW) sues me for smashing up his car.

-We arrive at the courthouse, GW slaps down a pile of papers fit to kill goats with, laying out, blow by blow how I reduced a fine automobile to a heap of twisted metal.

-I reply "Your honor, even if everything GW says is true, it doesn't matter, because it wasn't GW's car."

-The judge turns to them and says "can you prove the car is yours?"

-"Uhhhhhhhh..."

When one considers that GW has bragged (referring to it as their "moat") about the unassailable quality of their IP protection, it's nothing short of shocking that they have been so utterly lax, so totally negligent, in actually making certain that what they claim is their is actually theirs.

Beyond that, it will be quite interesting to see GW claim that their products are artwork of a sculptural nature, when they are sold looking like...


Let's not forget, GW doesn't actually sell models... they sell model kits. Kits that don't just require assembly, but necessarily require alteration.

I am not rooting for GW by any means, just examining how each legal team is approaching this suit.

Personally I don't think that GW should be allowed to claim they are producing sculptural artworks, but that's what they are claiming and it'll be interesting to see if the court upholds the artwork angle or if they'll treated as a consumer goods like iphones or car parts.

The artwork vs consumer goods is the major interest I have in the outcome of this case as it has a huge impact on the gaming industry.

The second area I'm interested in; seeing how the ownership issue hammers out as it can damage GW's line severely. It can likewise have a huge impact on other miniatures companies as most companies use freelance artists.


I've got no dog in the fight for either side but I have keen interest in the strategies being applied and how it'll impact the larger industry.

 paulson games wrote:
...

Much like how defence lawyers opperate in criminal cases, if you have a client that's guilty by their own admission you attack the chain of custody for police evidence and look for technical loopholes that you can get the case dismissed for.

First, I would point out this is an, as of now, entirely unwarranted in its negative implications of CHS' conduct.

Second, it's not at all necessary that the statements are incriminating: it's entirely possible they are exculpating.

That is, assuming, arguendo, that the judge rules that GW has a protect-able interest in various pure geometric shapes, the public statements go towards a secondary element: good faith belief that one's conduct was appropriate. In terms of damages, showing that you honestly thought that you were acting in the right is a mitigating factor.

That is, unless there is something wildly inappropriate, of course. As I recal, most statements were of the mode "our legal council has said this is all kosher". Reliance on expert testimony in a matter of law isn't an excuse, but it does serve to mitigate possible damages.

Finally, to speak of " technical loopholes" in this manner is to mistake the significance of what is being argued before the court. It is entirely possible that the court will rule that even if all formalities had been followed (which they clearly have not been), the material so claimed is not appropriate for protection.

Saying "guilty by their own admission" is putting the legal cart before the horse. The first step, the sine qua non, is that GW must prove they actually own this stuff. Unless and until GW does so, no actions on the part of CHS have any bearing on anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 paulson games wrote:
I am not rooting for GW by any means, just examining how each legal team is approaching this suit.
...
I've got no dog in the fight for either side but I have keen interest in the strategies being applied and how it'll impact the larger industry.

My pardon, I did not mean to imply you were necessarily supporting them, I was merely reacting to what I construed as an inappropriate understanding of the legal strategy.

As someone who has, on a professional level, been involved in trying to trim back abuses of the IP system in this country, I am perhaps too sensitive to the idea that violating what one party claims is their IP is the same as actually violating their IP>

The first step, the sine qua non, is that GW must prove they actually own this stuff. Unless and until GW does so, no actions on the part of CHS have any bearing on anything.

And this is the part that kills me. Can the judge not demand such proof before even allowing a suit to get this far? In the smashed car analogy, the VERY first thing any authority, be it police or a judge, would do is require the plaintiff to show that it was in fact their car. To a further degree, if you claim someone STOLE you car(which in a way GW is doing here) the police would require some proof that you own any such car, either by a DMV search or with a title or registration.

How is proof of ownership not the very first thing on the checklist for a suit over copyright and trademarks? Why on earth did this get this far without such proof?

Is this normal court procedure, or is the judge just wanting to see how incompetent someone can be at suing over IP?

It's all quite mind bottling.

+5 points if you get that last bit.

Is this normal court procedure, or is the judge just wanting to see how incompetent someone can be at suing over IP?

There is always the possibility that it meets the court requirements to be filed?

Just because you make a mess of things doesn't mean it doesn't still meet the minimum criteria for making a case.

Having met the judge at the beginning of the case he is a hard-ass and has no tollerance of people wasting his time, if it didn't meet the standards he would have tossed everything already. While there's a lot of heckling back and forth on both sides there are a number of valid points which has kept it floating and headed to trial.


Additionally as a judge he is to remain impartial. If a side burns themself because they are underprepared it's not his place to stop them. Like a referee he only rules over what is legal and what isn't, regardless of how bad a team may be doing.

 Aerethan wrote:

How is proof of ownership not the very first thing on the checklist for a suit over copyright and trademarks? Why on earth did this get this far without such proof?

Pretty sure this question should get resolved for each IP claim when the court rules on the MSJs in two weeks (?) or so.
If GW has not shown that they own the IP for each piece that they claim to own, then those items may get tossed from the suit. If enough of them get tossed, the judge could toss the whole suit.

Tim

 paulson games wrote:

Additionally as a judge he is to remain impartial. If a side burns themself because they are underprepared it's not his place to stop them. Like a referee he only rules over what is legal and what isn't, regardless of how bad a team may be doing.

That answered my question right there. I forget that judges in these instances are not there to explain how to file a suit with a proper platform or case, just to make sure that the rules are followed, most of which are not rules on how to play, but rather rules on what ISN'T allowed.

That would make full contact sports way more interesting. I suppose MMA is about that level of rules, though my knowledge of that is quite limited.

I forgot that GW dragged you into this nightmare and that you have first hand experience with at least a few of the key people involved here such as the judge. Good to know that he's a hard ass, which I imagine one would have to be when dealing with such bold claims and large companies that think their weight is worth a damn.

I still think he laughs about GW's offense team with the other judges at the golf course.

This whole subject drives me mental... If there's a demand for alternative style GW products, why don't GW just make them?

 sphynx wrote:
This whole subject drives me mental... If there's a demand for alternative style GW products, why don't GW just make them?

What Alternative style GW? GW produce GW style.

Demand is another thing, People say they want a female farseer, how many would/have CS sold?

 paulson games wrote:
The iPhone or other aftermarket items are a differant legal area then what GW is trying to prove, GW is going largely after things as derivative works and deceptive trademark use.

GW needs to sell the jury that their items are "artwork" and thus protected by that set of laws, which normally don't apply to things like aftermarket car parts or iPhone cases.

I tend to agree - however, when presented with the claim which GW makes...the counter point is that it is a descriptive use of the trademark and that there is no confusion caused (as confusion is the key to GWs claim).

Even though they haven't been able to prove any confusion.