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.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It seems completely ridiculous to say you can copy an existing design, make some parts larger and thereby have done an act of original artistic creation.

Well, in US law you can successfully claim patent of the genes of living persons (or 10,000 year old cultivated plants). So such things happen

There are enough quirks in every legal system across the globe to equal these.

I think the US legal system bashing has become more than a little... tired.

Without prejudice, the US legal system as regards patents actually has seemed to become out of step with the rest of the developed world, hence the occasional anomalies of it patenting ideas, natural phenomena and discoveries, none of which would have been accepted formerly in the US, or anywhere else.

Though indeed there are quirks everywhere. The British cannot be proud of their Libel laws, for example.

 insaniak wrote:

If we could all stop picking out pictures of shoulder pads that look nothing like GW's Space Marine shoulder pads and presenting them in the thread as examples of previously designed shoulder pads that look like GW's shoulder pads, that would be helpful.

Stormtrooper shoulder pads share only the same basic shape. They lack the border, and instead have a single ridge down the middle, and are much, much smaller than Marine pads.

"Don't look anything like" is a bit strong.

The judge didn't mention the border at all. And I'm still not sure that size is unusual enough to be given IP protection. "We were the first restaurant in town to sell a 20-ounce steak... therefore nobody else can".

And remember that all he's ruled is that based on the law presented by the 2 parties and other precedent, there's no reason to throw out the potential copyright claim.

That doesn't mean the copyright is valid on its face - that's for a jury to decide.

 Alpharius wrote:
There are enough quirks in every legal system across the globe to equal these.
I think the US legal system bashing has become more than a little... tired.

Just browse this website to see some of the most funny weird laws: http://www.dumblaws.com/ .
Examples:

And a precedent case based law system naturally has more of this nonsense than a written law system.
The above examples are funny, but the US patent laws are a major international nuisance dictated by US company lobbyists.

And all of those are exaggerations, or leaving part of the law put. The NC one, for example, is essentially the definition of common law marriage. There's more to it than that, but presenting themselves as man and wife is a requirement.

Examples of stupidity on the site:
http://www.dumblaws.com/law/933

They say football is illegal in Beaumont, TX - but if you click through you see that there's no such law.

Let's stay on-topic please.

12/03/2012 260 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:

Status hearing held. Plaintiff is directed to file an amended complaint in this case by 12/10/2012 to add the claims that were the subject of the second lawsuit.

Response to amended complaint is due 12/24/2012.

Telephone status hearing, to be initiated by the attorneys, is set for 12/12/2012 at 9:30 AM.

Jury Trial set for 4/15/2013 at 09:45 AM.

Joint status report with a proposed discovery and pretrial schedule on the newly asserted claims is to be filed by 12/11/2012. (or, ) (Entered: 12/03/2012)

--------------------

So, the new lawsuit is being joined to the existing suit, CHS gets the delight and joy of drafting a response due on Christmas Eve, and the new trial date set. And more discovery and pretrial motions.

Looks like the judge isn't too keen on follow-up lawsuits; either that or it was all on the up and up where GW wanted to add the latter items but the judge told them it was a separate issue and to file another suit that could be added to the current one.

So what's the verdict with the shoulder pads? That they can or can't sell them?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So what's the verdict with the shoulder pads? That they can or can't sell them?

No verdict yet - it's going to trial.

Trial was supposed to be this month. So in 4 months time will GW add another batch of claims and put off trial another 4 months? That is ridiculous.

 Aerethan wrote:
Trial was supposed to be this month. So in 4 months time will GW add another batch of claims and put off trial another 4 months? That is ridiculous.

The new claims didn't push the trial back, it got bumped backed by the court.

4 months is a big bump. I'd hate to be the person in charge of court scheduling.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So what's the verdict with the shoulder pads? That they can or can't sell them?

If the judge felt strongly enough, he could have issued an injunction in his Summary Judgement. That didn't happen - granted, GW also failed to request any specific relief...but still...

Like the rest of the case - with the exception of the few items which the judge issued a specific ruling on, it will head to the jury trial.

I realise that this is OT, but originally this case was about the specific infringements by CHS against GW. The summary judgement seems to have thrown the net completely open and is going to catch most if not all third party bits companies, for example, Scibor produces a nice line of shoulder pads they were completely in the clear and now...

I'm assuming that most if not all are watching this case with interest and perhaps following this thread, so this is a question for them. Are you more worried now about this case after reading/hearing about the summary judgement?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I realise that this is OT, but originally this case was about the specific infringements by CHS against GW. The summary judgement seems to have thrown the net completely open and is going to catch most if not all third party bits companies, for example, Scibor produces a nice line of shoulder pads they were completely in the clear and now...

Except they weren't completely in the clear. This case has always had the possibility of setting a precedent.

I'm assuming that most if not all are watching this case with interest and perhaps following this thread, so this is a question for them. Are you more worried now about this case after reading/hearing about the summary judgement?

None of the 3rd party bits makers should be worried yet - GW has to win the case and then bring a suit against them individually. That's plenty of time for them to react in my opinion.

 AndrewC wrote:
I realise that this is OT, but originally this case was about the specific infringements by CHS against GW. The summary judgement seems to have thrown the net completely open and is going to catch most if not all third party bits companies, for example, Scibor produces a nice line of shoulder pads they were completely in the clear and now...

I'm assuming that most if not all are watching this case with interest and perhaps following this thread, so this is a question for them. Are you more worried now about this case after reading/hearing about the summary judgement?

Cheers

Andrew

Any final rulings only hold sway in the US. Other courts in the world may choose to accept any US court's findings but are most certainly not required to.

rigeld2 wrote:

 AndrewC wrote:
I realise that this is OT, but originally this case was about the specific infringements by CHS against GW. The summary judgement seems to have thrown the net completely open and is going to catch most if not all third party bits companies, for example, Scibor produces a nice line of shoulder pads they were completely in the clear and now...

Except they weren't completely in the clear. This case has always had the possibility of setting a precedent.

I'm assuming that most if not all are watching this case with interest and perhaps following this thread, so this is a question for them. Are you more worried now about this case after reading/hearing about the summary judgement?

None of the 3rd party bits makers should be worried yet - GW has to win the case and then bring a suit against them individually. That's plenty of time for them to react in my opinion.

additionally, scibor never purported to advertise that it's products and parts were in any way shape or form intended to integrate with the warhammer 40'000 line, and even then, I imagine there are sublte differences, given that scibor's minis are actually bigger. There might be a degree of compatibility between scibor's paulrdons and GW terminator arms, but that would probably require an interfacing medium, like kneadadite, to make it work. I'm more concerned about the implication with respect to other companies, but I can't actually think of any other major manufacturer that provides alternative parts for GW's minis that's based in the united states. Bitspudlo, puppetswar, Kromlech, even Scibor... I'm not familiar with any other companies, but these have nothing to fear from any precedent set in the united states.

Any ruling either in favor or against CHS will have absolutely no impact on any other manufacturer outside of the US.

EDIT:

damit, beaten to the punch by agnosto... need to refresh my bloody screen more often.

The amended complaint has been filed. I was able to download it from pacer but can't figure out how to get it on recap.

I'm just to clarify my earlier question. Originally, I think that most 3rd party bits were feeling a bit safe in that the complaints were specifically levelled at CHS products and that they were too specific, ie there was a perceivable connection between known chapters and iconagraphy. However the court seems to have suggested that the shape is the copyrightable bit. So on that basis it would appear that anyone who markets oversized shoulder pads should/could now be worried that they may lose their line of products.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
I'm just to clarify my earlier question. Originally, I think that most 3rd party bits were feeling a bit safe in that the complaints were specifically levelled at CHS products and that they were too specific, ie there was a perceivable connection between known chapters and iconagraphy. However the court seems to have suggested that the shape is the copyrightable bit. So on that basis it would appear that anyone who markets oversized shoulder pads should/could now be worried that they may lose their line of products.

Anyone who felt like the bolded was true was fooling themselves.

Honestly, given the case the 4 month new date is working extremely fast.

I understand the concept of this thread is to debate the legality and update everyone on the proceedings of the case, but I'd like to step back and look at a larger idea for a moment. Is GW really losing money over third party manufacturers? There are basically two ways to look at this. Either most players will spend a given amount of money on your product over a given period of time or most players will buy a given number of models over a given period of time. If you take the first view, then any form of entertainment can be considered a threat to their bottom line, from books to movies to dining. However, I feel most people fall more into the second view. Your goal is to create a specific army list, and although there will be some deviation from it for a unit you just had to have, mostly you'll reach for that goal. So if you want to set apart your Sergeants with the Spiky Heads from Chapterhouse, you'll probably buy a pack or two of them, but you'll still need just as many bodies. I think it's also worth mentioning, I figure the ratio of bits sold to full minis sold would be staggering. First off, they are typically significantly more expensive, and second off, they rarely are close enough looking to fit in with the remainder of the army. Also, how many of us have seen a bit that we've wanted to use and justified using it, even if we didn't quite need it. I started a Guard army based off the great Max Mini torsos. The amazing thing about it is I bought three squads of Cadians and not a single one of those damned torsos. Games Workshop made out quite well off that decision. I mean, these bits do not hurt GW, and possibly help their sales. I would go so far as to say they draw attention from new players and generate enthusiasm among old players, which helps the biggest company the most. And who's bigger than GW? I guess these third party companies do this for the same reason we all do this. For the love of the game. It's worth mentioning, no one would try and produce parts for a game that sucks and no one plays.

Yours is a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with it, but it's still opinion.

That said, it's a topic we've derailed into several times over the last 107 pages, and the Mods do not want it here. You would probably be better off starting a new topic or checking to see if it would fit better in the "So, what if CHS wins?" thread
-In fairness, I'm not following that thread, so I don't know if it would be appropriate there, or not.

Eric

 noneoftheabove0 wrote:
I understand the concept of this thread is to debate the legality and update everyone on the proceedings of the case, but I'd like to step back and look at a larger idea for a moment. Is GW really losing money over third party manufacturers?

It depends on what they're selling. If you go buy the Seer Council conversion kits from Chapterhouse, GW aren't losing a penny. They don't sell Seer Council jetbikes or conversion kits for them. Some are debateable - like the Striking Scorpion exarch with chain sabres upgrade. GW don't sell a model with that upgrade, but the debateable point is people would have converted a Striking Scorpion exarch to make it. With the chapterhouse Farseer, yes, because it's in direct competition with GW's farseer models.

The ironic part is a lot of it makes GW money. If you buy a Seer Council conversion kit, you need to buy GW Eldar jetbikes to use them.

I personally doubt "oversize shoulder pads" are going to be determined to be protected. But, I guess we'll see in 4 months' time

 MagickalMemories wrote:
Yours is a matter of opinion. I happen to agree with it, but it's still opinion.

That said, it's a topic we've derailed into several times over the last 107 pages, and the Mods do not want it here. You would probably be better off starting a new topic or checking to see if it would fit better in the "So, what if CHS wins?" thread
-In fairness, I'm not following that thread, so I don't know if it would be appropriate there, or not.

Eric

This. No deviations into other topics, please. We've survived 107 pages by sticking to the topic.

Joint status report: http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.264.0.pdf

Minutes from the telephone status hearing:

http://www.archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.265.0.pdf

Looks like both parties are dug in for the long haul then. So is new counsel for the defence a replacement for winston and strawn or is it additional counsel?

From the footnotes of the joint status report:

"Chapterhouse identifies the anticipated general categories of discovery but reserves its right to supplement after it has discussed with and brought new co-counsel for the defense, Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP up to speed. Marshall Gerstein anticipates filing a notice of appearance this week and like Winston & Strawn will be representing Chapterhouse on a pro bono basis."

They look like additional local counsel brought in for the jury trial. One rising star partner and one junior associate. Both with an engineering background (fairly common in ip / patent type lawyers).

http://www.marshallip.com/professionals/39/julianne-m-hartzell
http://www.marshallip.com/professionals/113/sarah-j-kalemeris