Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234! Chapterhouse to re-open store

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.

**Ouze**

I agree on the liars, regarding Starship Troopers.

That being said, I made it to page 90 before giving up. Even with someone as witty as this it's just too dry to power through; I truly have no idea how people do this for a living. I'll content myself to read the highlight reels here.

**weeble1000**

czakk wrote:
There isn't a judge present, just a court reporter.

They are just registering that they think something is wrong with the question and they'll hash it out with the judge later as to whether the question is admissible or not. Sometimes it gets used to rattle the other lawyer or put your deponent on notice to answer carefully (although it isn't supposed to be). Pretty much the only question that you can tell a deponent not to answer is one that touches legally privileged information (that sort of happens at the start of this deposition).

There can also be sticky issues with questions beyond the stated scope of deposition. I have seen a deponent walk out of a depo when counsel repeatedly asked personal questions flagrantly beyond the stated scope of the depo, but stuff like that is super rare.

It's just not cool to get someone under oath and then start asking questions that have nothing to do with the reason the deponent is being questioned.

**AndrewC**

A couple more for ouze.

Q. Okay, can something be partially original?
A. No.
Q. Why not?
A. For the same reason you can't be partially pregnant.
(This is in response to the same question being asked in several variations)
A. How dead does a horse need to be?
Q. Is that your answer?
A. Yes. Once a horse is dead, it is needless to keep killing it.
(More exasperation from Prof Grindley here)
Q. Based on your research of prior military shoulder pads or other instances of models or pictures, have you identified any others that would fit on the arm of a space marine?
A. Historically. Suits of armor have been very, very large and space marines are only an inch tall, so no.

Now I've given up reading it, 150 pages is a lot.

One thing that did stand out to me was that GW demanded CHS reference materials and got them, but GW didn't provide details of their reference materials to CHS/Prof Grindley. Anyone want to take a bet on whether Starship Troopers is there?

Cheers

Andrew

I would like to buy Professor Grindley a drink.

**Sean_OBrien**

The book...probably not in the "official" library...no pictures. There official library though is likely to be rather sparse though. Instead they will rely on people watching movies, reading comics and books, watching TV and the like in their own time in order to provide material that GW derives their stuff from.

In that sense, what the good doctor is getting at is very important. The first Space Marines, done by Bob Naismith may have been derived from the Asgard miniatures which were derived from a magazine cover which was in turn derived from Starship troopers text. The redesign of the Space Marines by Jes would be derived from Bob's work...and subsequently the entire chain of things back to Starship Troopers.

**cardigan**

Reading through all this, and I urge anyone to, it is surprising as an expat Brit, how similar the aggressive questions are similar to those in courtroom-based American TV shows. It is even more entertaining to see the Prof Grindley is quite obviously more intelligent than the lawyer (correct word?) is.

In discussing derivation:

Q. Do you believe Star Wars Episode I is
derived from Star Wars Episode II?
A. No, I would not. I would say Star Wars
Episode II and Star Wars Episode I are derived
from Star Wars Episode IV.
MR. COOPER: He got you there

Really entertaining. And in some part quite ridiculous.

**Steelmage99**

For anybody with previous legal experience;

Is it normal for an expert witness to be THAT aware of the various wordings and their significance, and having the philosophical wherewithal to know when a question is unanswerable?

**Sean_OBrien**

Depends on the witness. Much like regular people, witnesses have varying grasps of language...

This particular one happens to be an English Phd...so, his grasp of the language and how words can be twisted should be above average.

**MagickalMemories**

Q. So if the person who came up with the
6 description flamer for Games Workshop testifies
7 that they have never read Starship Troopers --
8 A. All right.
9 Q. -- you would believe that would be
10 absurd?
11 A. I would believe that would not only be
12 absurd but probably a lie. I don't believe that
13 there would be anyone working in anything to do
14 with science fiction who has not, either as a
15 child or young adult or as an adult, not read this
16 novel.
17 Q. So if there were multiple people from
18 Games Workshop saying they have never read
19 Starship Troopers, you would call them all liars?
20 MR. COOPER: Objection.
21 THE WITNESS: No, I would not call
22 someone a liar.
23 BY MR. KEENER:
24 Q. You would believe they are lying?

As much as the guy's entertaining me, I've got to call BS. I was in my 30's before I'd ever heard of Heinlein, and my LATE 30's before I read anything by him. In fact, I read Friday before Starship Troopers!

I'd known about flame throwers before his books and, up to that point, GW had the only version of a hand held flamer (sans backpack) I'd ever seen. I may not be common, considering that I was never really into Sci Fi in my youth and, in fact, had no interest in it until AFTER I started playing 40K... but it's the truth.

[edit for clarity]
I didn't finish typing out what I was thinking...
I'd had independently created ideas in my head for a flame thrower with the tank attached to the "gun" since I was a kid. In fact, in my youth, upon seeing images of guys wearing traditional flame throwers, I remember thinking how crazy it was to wear that giant bomb strapped to your back. I thought (right or wrong), "One shot to the tank and you explode!" Seemed to me that it would be easier (and harder to hit with a bullet) if the tanks were smaller, attached to the gun, and replaceable, like co2 cartridges in BB guns.

Eric

**Charax**

MagickalMemories wrote:

As much as the guy's entertaining me, I've got to call BS. I was in my 30's before I'd ever heard of Heinlein, and my LATE 30's before I read anything by him. In fact, I read Friday before Starship Troopers!

I'd known about flame throwers before his books and, up to that point, GW had the only version of a hand held flamer (sans backpack) I'd ever seen. I may not be common, considering that I was never really into Sci Fi in my youth and, in fact, had no interest in it until AFTER I started playing 40K... but it's the truth.

You didnt actually read what you quoted, did you?

11 A. I would believe that would not only be
12 absurd but probably a lie. I don't believe that
13 there would be anyone working in anything to do
14 with science fiction who has not, either as a
15 child or young adult or as an adult, not read this
16 novel.

Working In Anything To Do With Science Fiction

If you were "never really into sci fi in your youth" then you cannot have been "working in anything to do with science fiction" and therefore you fall outside the group he says would be aware of Starship Troopers and your personal experience is utterly irrelevant to Professor Grindley's testimony

**d-usa**

This really is great reading.

8 Q. How do I understand which similarities
9 you're putting under that category?
10 A. I don't have any idea how you
11 understand things.

**Sean_OBrien**

The other issue goes to the specific term used. While you might have heard of flame throwers in the past, the specific term "flamer" was used in the Starship Troopers book. Since GW uses that specific term, it is probable that the originator of the term in the 40K universe had gotten it from SST.

The design can be tied back more closely to those used in the Alien franchise. Those movies featured two different (that I can recall) flame thrower designs with the fuel cannister on the weapon itself. Due to the nature of those films being part of pop culture, it is even more likely that they are both conscious and unconsciously part of the designers collective knowledge.

**Miguelsan**

Is it me or the good professor was quite fond of answering obtuse questions with obtuse answers? I'm on page 20 and this is incredble.

7 A. No, I want you to understand, too. I'm
8 trying to think of a way to phrase this so that
9 it's clear for you but it's very difficult to
10 phrase it in a way that you're willing to follow.

M.

**czakk**

Well, Mr. Keener's job isn't to look smart, win an argument or impress the guy, it is to get him to say something that can be used to impeach him or his report, and to lock his story in so they don't get any surprises when he hits the witness stand.

And I suppose to get a read on how he'll come across to a jury if it comes to that.

Interesting to see the concern around Buzz Lightyear's legs and their similarity to SM power armor.

**Dysartes**

I was hoping to avoid having to read a 150 page PDF, but this is sounding too entertaining not to - though I think I'll wait until the weekend.

The partly original answer is just pure genius.

**PhantomViper**

Q. Based on your research of prior military shoulder pads or other instances of models or pictures, have you identified any others that would fit on the arm of a space marine?
A. Historically. Suits of armor have been very, very large and space marines are only an inch tall, so no.

This is pure gold!

**Ian Sturrock**

I really liked "A. It's not that I'm unable to tell you, it seems you're not able to ask me".

**Shandara**

This witness is obviously someone who thinks before answering, I'm impressed. He stabs through the lawyer-speak and turns it right back at them.

**Kilkrazy**

MagickalMemories wrote:

Q. So if the person who came up with the
6 description flamer for Games Workshop testifies
7 that they have never read Starship Troopers --
8 A. All right.
9 Q. -- you would believe that would be
10 absurd?
11 A. I would believe that would not only be
12 absurd but probably a lie. I don't believe that
13 there would be anyone working in anything to do
14 with science fiction who has not, either as a
15 child or young adult or as an adult, not read this
16 novel.
17 Q. So if there were multiple people from
18 Games Workshop saying they have never read
19 Starship Troopers, you would call them all liars?
20 MR. COOPER: Objection.
21 THE WITNESS: No, I would not call
22 someone a liar.
23 BY MR. KEENER:
24 Q. You would believe they are lying?

As much as the guy's entertaining me, I've got to call BS. I was in my 30's before I'd ever heard of Heinlein, and my LATE 30's before I read anything by him. In fact, I read Friday before Starship Troopers!

I'd known about flame throwers before his books and, up to that point, GW had the only version of a hand held flamer (sans backpack) I'd ever seen. I may not be common, considering that I was never really into Sci Fi in my youth and, in fact, had no interest in it until AFTER I started playing 40K... but it's the truth.

[edit for clarity]
I didn't finish typing out what I was thinking...
I'd had independently created ideas in my head for a flame thrower with the tank attached to the "gun" since I was a kid. In fact, in my youth, upon seeing images of guys wearing traditional flame throwers, I remember thinking how crazy it was to wear that giant bomb strapped to your back. I thought (right or wrong), "One shot to the tank and you explode!" Seemed to me that it would be easier (and harder to hit with a bullet) if the tanks were smaller, attached to the gun, and replaceable, like co2 cartridges in BB guns.

Eric

There was a hand flamer called a hand flamer in Laserburn, published by Bryan Ansell in about 1980. We don't know if he got the idea from Starship Troopers or invented it from fresh.

Naturally not everyone has read Starship Troopers, however it is difficult to believe that no-one ever employed in or by the 40K design studio from 1985 to 1990, while the look of Space Marines was formulated, had ever seen Star Wars or Aliens or read Starship Troopers or similar military SF books (Forever War pub.1974, etc.) It would beggar belief that a bunch of young men interested in SF and wargames would be completely unaware of those publications.

**mrwhoop**

Ok, so the first 352 pages is GW's Mr Keener and then there's a handful pages of questioning by CH's Mr Cooper. This process has taken most of the day and I believe the ending stamp is 5:47 PM. Just before this ends we get this...

MR. COOPER: I have no further questions.

MR. KEENER: Recross. I have less than five minutes for you here.

THE WITNESS: This is not funny. I've got a kid waiting for me.

MR. KEENER: I understand. I have a flight to go to, too. Less than five minutes here.

THE WITNESS: I'm not getting paid for this. You are.

FURTHER EXAMINATION
BY MR. KEENER:

It's about another page on a pdf but still, gotta get that 5 minutes amirite? Seriously though I understand the GW side would have far more questions for the CH expert witness but geez that's a time sink.

Backing up though there's this bit on pg 267 (doc pg)

BY MR. KEENER:

Q. I'm going to show you what's been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 193. I'm not going ask you to read all of this.

MR. COOPER: Well, I'm going to ask him to read it to the extent he needs to to answer any of your questions.

This leads into some reading of legal docs and the phrase "a unique combination of those elements" in case cites/legal definitions of 'art'. Eventually Mr Cooper instructs his witness to not answer Mr Keener's question (pg276). Very good read if I say so and also this 'define "blank" as legal or scholarly term happens more than once throughout questioning.

Also on pg 282 Mr Keener is trying to confirm assembly/fitting of CH bits on GW stuff but the witness only had pics to work with making his report. So Keener directs his line of questioning thusly:

Q.Why don't we look at page 12 of your chart. There is a shoulder pad which I believe is fitted on to a Games Workshop arm.

A.Is it fitted on the arm or is it fitted on the torso?

Q.My understanding is it's fitted on the arm.

A.Understanding or knowledge?

Q.My understanding is it's fitted on the arm.

A.So you don't know?

Q.I do. It's fitted on the arm.

A.Okay, so it's fitted on the arm. Then I guess it fits on the arm.

**Sean_OBrien**

Kilkrazy wrote:

There was a hand flamer called a hand flamer in Laserburn, published by Bryan Ansell in about 1980. We don't know if he got the idea from Starship Troopers or invented it from fresh.

Naturally not everyone has read Starship Troopers, however it is difficult to believe that no-one ever employed in or by the 40K design studio from 1985 to 1990, while the look of Space Marines was formulated, had ever seen Star Wars or Aliens or read Starship Troopers or similar military SF books (Forever War pub.1974, etc.) It would beggar belief that a bunch of young men interested in SF and wargames would be completely unaware of those publications.

We don't really need to speculate on that though...

When I discovered fantasy, science and historical fiction in the 1960s Moorcock wasn't visible enough yet to make it into my local (Arnold) library. I was enthusiastic about Jack Vance, Clark Ashton Smith , Harry Harrison, Fritz Leiber, Keith Laumer, James Blish , Robert Sheckley, Brian Aldis , Edgar Rice Burroughs , Kurt Vonnegut, Robert Heinlein ,TH White, Cyril Judd, Fritz Leiber, Philip K Dick and others . Also Russell Thorndike, Rafael Sabatini, Hubert Cole, Alfred Duggan, Mary Renault, Henry Treece, Geoffrey Trease and Leslie Charteris.

http://realmofchaos80s.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-mighty-avenger-interview-with-bryan.html

Anyone who has read Heinlein, has likely read Starship Troopers...while he wrote other books, it was far and away his flagship book. I don't have access to my copies of Laserburn right now, but it used to actually be common practice for games developers to thank their various sources of inspiration in the front/back of their rules. He might have even referenced Starship Troopers there as well.

It is rather interesting that the guy who was pushing the creative side of things when 40K was being set down on paper (and lead) had no problem talking about the books and other artists he looked to for inspiration, while the guy who is the art director for GW references the weather and shopping centers.

**Kilkrazy**

Well, the line that GW are taking -- you can see this in the way their lawyer frames his questioning -- is that even if GW took inspirations from other sources -- e.g. hand flamer, shoulder pads -- once incorporated into the Space Marine model, that in itself is an original work of art and if deconstructed, the hand flamer and shoulder pad when separated are derivative of the whole model and thus are original GW properties that no-one else can use.

The expert witness's opinion seems to be that the vast mass of pre-existing popular culture depictions of space armour, weapons and styling is so widely known as to prevent any purely original depiction of a "future soldier" or Space marine from being made. And this point was reached by 1990 at the latest, but might have been before then.

**jonolikespie**

mrwhoop wrote:

Also on pg 282 Mr Keener is trying to confirm assembly/fitting of CH bits on GW stuff but the witness only had pics to work with making his report. So Keener directs his line of questioning thusly:

Q.Why don't we look at page 12 of your chart. There is a shoulder pad which I believe is fitted on to a Games Workshop arm.

A.Is it fitted on the arm or is it fitted on the torso?

Q.My understanding is it's fitted on the arm.

A.Understanding or knowledge?

Q.My understanding is it's fitted on the arm.

A.So you don't know?

Q.I do. It's fitted on the arm.

A.Okay, so it's fitted on the arm. Then I guess it fits on the arm.

Oh god that's brilliant.

I have only read like 20 pages of it but the whole thing seems to be the GW lawyer asking the same questions 4 to 6 times over hoping to get the witness to trip up on his wording so they can then turn around and take everything he says out of context but, like the case as a whole, GW seem entirely unprepared to deal with someone who knows what they are doing.

**Trasvi**

jonolikespie wrote:

Oh god that's brilliant.

I have only read like 20 pages of it but the whole thing seems to be the GW lawyer asking the same questions 4 to 6 times over hoping to get the witness to trip up on his wording so they can then turn around and take everything he says out of context but, like the case as a whole, GW seem entirely unprepared to deal with someone who knows what they are doing.

Thats not really how I perceived it. It seemed more like a English professor who is obsessed with being precise in the meaning of the words that he uses, and won't agree that the sky is blue until the questioner defines what they mean by 'sky' 'is' and 'blue'. There were a lot of times when the questioner was asking 'do you know what X was thinking' and he replied 'that's impossible to answer'... or something similar.

From what I read, the good professor seems to have a good grasp of 'there is nothing new under the sun', but doesn't talk about or seem interested in the copyright concepts of protectable elements. GW's soldiers are wearing helmets; all soldiers wear helmets, therefore GW soldiers are 'derived from all soldiers (in language terms, not legal), regardless of whether the particular shape of GW's helms are unique, unusual or artistic. I find it actually a bit odd that a professor studying pop culture knows so little about copyright law, especially when he (incorrectly) references the Mona Lisa moustache (by Duchamp, not Salvador Dali)...

Whilst it was an entertaining read (as legal documents go), I'm not sure how much of it will be terribly useful in the courtroom. But IANAL, so, who knows.

**Kilkrazy**

He was discussing the subject from an academic viewpoint, which is the basis on which he was called as an expert witness. He would have been foolish to purport to have any knowledge about copyright and trademark law, when being questioned by an expert in that field.

As for the Mona Lisa point, it is irrelevant since his testimony to the court will all be based on his written report.

**jonolikespie**

Trasvi wrote:

Thats not really how I perceived it. It seemed more like a English professor who is obsessed with being precise in the meaning of the words that he uses, and won't agree that the sky is blue until the questioner defines what they mean by 'sky' 'is' and 'blue'. There were a lot of times when the questioner was asking 'do you know what X was thinking' and he replied 'that's impossible to answer'... or something similar.

I got a VERY strong impression that the reason he did that was so that he couldn't have his testimony twisted around and used against him. I think it was in the first 10-20 pages somewhere where he is asked if the chapterhouse stuff looked like the GW stuff and danced around the topic and wouldn't answer because the GW lawyer insisted on a yes or no answer and he simply wouldn't give it. A yes would be taken out of context and used by GW to say 'hey look, the expert agrees with us' but an outright no is not technically accurate when they do share similarities.
And it would be pretty poor form to give an answer to 'do you know what X was thinking' when it is impossible and any answer he gives can be used in legal proceedings

Trasvi wrote:
From what I read, the good professor seems to have a good grasp of 'there is nothing new under the sun', but doesn't talk about or seem interested in the copyright concepts of protectable elements. GW's soldiers are wearing helmets; all soldiers wear helmets, therefore GW soldiers are 'derived from all soldiers (in language terms, not legal), regardless of whether the particular shape of GW's helms are unique, unusual or artistic. I find it actually a bit odd that a professor studying pop culture knows so little about copyright law, especially when he (incorrectly) references the Mona Lisa moustache (by Duchamp, not Salvador Dali)...

Whilst it was an entertaining read (as legal documents go), I'm not sure how much of it will be terribly useful in the courtroom. But IANAL, so, who knows.

Again, GW guys are just men in powered armour, as are the chapterhouse ones, but that is not a concept invented by, or owned by, GW. It is not that GWs guys have helmets therefore they are soldiers end of story, is is that GW have helmets, CH have helmets, (almost) every other military uniform in real life and science fiction have helmets. He is not the person who gets to draw the line at where one helmet resembles another enough to infringe copyright so he is not going to be drawn into saying something the GW lawyers can then take out of context.

**MagickalMemories**

Charax wrote:
MagickalMemories wrote:

As much as the guy's entertaining me, I've got to call BS. I was in my 30's before I'd ever heard of Heinlein, and my LATE 30's before I read anything by him. In fact, I read Friday before Starship Troopers!

I'd known about flame throwers before his books and, up to that point, GW had the only version of a hand held flamer (sans backpack) I'd ever seen. I may not be common, considering that I was never really into Sci Fi in my youth and, in fact, had no interest in it until AFTER I started playing 40K... but it's the truth.

You didnt actually read what you quoted, did you?

11 A. I would believe that would not only be
12 absurd but probably a lie. I don't believe that
13 there would be anyone working in anything to do
14 with science fiction who has not, either as a
15 child or young adult or as an adult, not read this
16 novel.

Working In Anything To Do With Science Fiction

If you were "never really into sci fi in your youth" then you cannot have been "working in anything to do with science fiction" and therefore you fall outside the group he says would be aware of Starship Troopers and your personal experience is utterly irrelevant to Professor Grindley's testimony

If I hadn't read it, I couldn't have had anything near a response to it.
That said, I didn't make my point properly (yet again) which, considering my day yesterday, does not surprise me.
There is every chance that someone writing sci-fi never read Heinlein as a kid and was never into sci-fi in their youth. If, as I did, they got into it as an adult, they may have skipped over it.

It's like saying that JK Rowling HAD to have read Tolkein at some point, because she writes "fantasy" novels. Maybe she did or maybe not. It's not a sure thing, though.

What I was or was not into in my youth does not necessarily preclude me from working in that field as an adult. I mean, I wasn't into Banking or Computers as a kid (or, even, as a teen)... but here I am, anyway.

Eric

**Lint**

More than the testimony I'm really loving the cat scratching between the lawyers:

Spoiler:

**MagickalMemories**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
The other issue goes to the specific term used. While you might have heard of flame throwers in the past, the specific term "flamer" was used in the Starship Troopers book. Since GW uses that specific term, it is probable that the originator of the term in the 40K universe had gotten it from SST.

The design can be tied back more closely to those used in the Alien franchise. Those movies featured two different (that I can recall) flame thrower designs with the fuel cannister on the weapon itself. Due to the nature of those films being part of pop culture, it is even more likely that they are both conscious and unconsciously part of the designers collective knowledge.

I find the notion that it's probable that he got the term from Heinlein to be wholly inaccurate. It's conceivable that the first guy within GW to coin the term "flamer" to describe the weapon had never read Heinlein. It's possible that he happened to come up with the idea and name separately from Heinlein. I already described how I'd thought up the design as a kid, with no knowledge of either subject (pre-40K, in fact), so it's easily conceivable that the name was independently created, as well.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still a CHS supporter. I just fail to fall in step with that one point.

Eric

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

There was a hand flamer called a hand flamer in Laserburn, published by Bryan Ansell in about 1980. We don't know if he got the idea from Starship Troopers or invented it from fresh.

Naturally not everyone has read Starship Troopers, however it is difficult to believe that no-one ever employed in or by the 40K design studio from 1985 to 1990, while the look of Space Marines was formulated, had ever seen Star Wars or Aliens or read Starship Troopers or similar military SF books (Forever War pub.1974, etc.) It would beggar belief that a bunch of young men interested in SF and wargames would be completely unaware of those publications.

Except that he's not talking about *anyone* employed by GW's design studio in that time. Just the guy who came up with the design for GW:

Q. So if the person who came up with the
6 description flamer for Games Workshop testifies
7 that they have never read Starship Troopers --
8 A. All right.
9 Q. -- you would believe that would be
10 absurd?

**Lordhat**

Sean_OBrien wrote:

Anyone who has read Heinlein, has likely read Starship Troopers...while he wrote other books, it was far and away his flagship book.

See I would disagree here. IMHO Stranger in a Strange land was his 'flagship' if any of his books could be considered such.

**wowsmash**

Moral of the story. Don't try and have an linguistic duel with an English professor. You'll lose every time.