Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234!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.

**czakk**

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

Spoiler:

22 Q. Let's look at the bottom of page 19 of
23 that same exhibit. It begins, "Chapterhouse has
24 presented a report from William F.M. Brewster, the
275
1 Curator of Collections for the First Division
2 Museum at Cantigny Park in Wheaton, who stated
3 that Games Workshop's shoulder pads are 'in
4 keeping' with previous examples of military-style
5 shoulder pads found throughout history."
6 Stopping there, is that similar to your
7 opinion that you believe the shoulder pads are
8 similar to or derived from other shoulder pads in
9 history?
10 MR. COOPER: Objection, this is a
11 question based on what William F.M. Brewster
12 has said, and Dr. Grindley has not read his
13 report, opined on it --
14 MR. KEENER: Counsel, no speaking
15 objection, place an objection to form and
16 we'll continue.
17 DI MR. COOPER: No, I'm going instruct you
18 not to answer. Your question is absolutely
19 outside the scope and has nothing to do with
20 Dr. Grindley's opinion.
21 Don't answer that question.
22 MR. KEENER: You're instructing him not
23 to answer and it's not on a basis of
24 privilege; is that understood? Is that
1 correct? There's no privilege objection and
2 you're instructing the witness not to answer
3 in contrary to the rule; is that correct?
4 MR. COOPER: That is not correct, it is
5 not in contradiction to the rules. This is
6 absolutely outside the scope of his report.
7 MR. KEENER: You understand you can
8 only instruct him not to answer on the basis
9 of privilege, correct?
10 MR. COOPER: The objection here is you
11 cannot ask him to --
12 MR. KEENER: Then place your objection.
13 Do not instruct him not to answer.
14 MR. COOPER: I am instructing him not
15 to answer. If you want to get to the court
16 and get the court to say he should answer a
17 question about what F.M. Brewster said and
18 opined on, then you can do that. You can get
19 court on the phone right now and the judge can
20 decide whether or not he's going to answer the
21 question.
22 BY MR. KEENER:
23 Q. Are you refusing to answer the
24 question?
Chapterhouse / Games Workshop Unsigned Page 277 - 280
277
1 A. I'm refusing to answer the question.

The rule Mr. Keener is referring to is 30(c)(2) - (http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_30):

(2) Objections. An objection at the time of the examination—whether to evidence, to a party's conduct, to the officer's qualifications, to the manner of taking the deposition, or to any other aspect of the deposition—must be noted on the record, but the examination still proceeds; the testimony is taken subject to any objection. An objection must be stated concisely in a nonargumentative and nonsuggestive manner. A person may instruct a deponent not to answer only when necessary to preserve a privilege, to enforce a limitation ordered by the court, or to present a motion under Rule 30(d)(3).

There are also probably local rules that govern what forms an objection can take as well.

30(d)(3) is a motion to terminate the deposition, which I guess Mr. Cooper was threatening when he made his objection:

(3) Motion to Terminate or Limit.

(A) Grounds. At any time during a deposition, the deponent or a party may move to terminate or limit it on the ground that it is being conducted in bad faith or in a manner that unreasonably annoys, embarrasses, or oppresses the deponent or party. The motion may be filed in the court where the action is pending or the deposition is being taken. If the objecting deponent or party so demands, the deposition must be suspended for the time necessary to obtain an order.

The "speaking objection" Mr. Keener complains about is basically an objection that goes beyond what is necessary to give the grounds on which an objection is made - basically an objection that coaches or suggests an answer to the deponent.

**Slipstream**

This is the first time I've posted in this topic and I hope I'm not doing anything that's considered trolling or whatever but; can we please make this professor an honorary Dakka moderator and can someone please write a script for a film version of this testimony?I've never laughed so much recently, and it was even my birthday 5 days ago!!!

**Aerethan**

Slipstream wrote:
This is the first time I've posted in this topic and I hope I'm not doing anything that's considered trolling or whatever but; can we please make this professor an honorary Dakka moderator and can someone please write a script for a film version of this testimony?I've never laughed so much recently, and it was even my birthday 5 days ago!!!

I agree that a reenactment of the finer points of the deposition would be entertaining, as text lacks all of the sarcastic intonation that you just know the professor is spouting.

Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer, or in this case 150 pages of stupid questions and awesome answers.

**Lint**

czakk wrote:
*snip*

Thanks for the explanation, I figured there was a legal airplane flying overhead. Mostly I was just picturing 2 ten years olds fighting when I read:

You can get court on the phone right now and the judge can decide whether or not he's going to answer the question.

**czakk**

If you want to see two year old behaviour you should see Mr. Moskin's Oh Oh Oh Mr. Oh comment that's buried like, 100 pages back.

-Edit-

Found it, making fun of the guys name, and doing that annoying simon-says copy cat gak that kids do:

8 MR. MOSKIN: The witness has agreed to give you
9 another 30 minutes. We are continuing the rest of
10 this deposition under protest. Please try to make use
of the time wisely.
12 MR. OH: Again for the record, 30 minutes is less than
13 the aggregate two hours that previously counsel agreed
14 to, and again we are conducting the rest of this
15 deposition under protest also.
16 MR. MOSKIN: You are? Okay, good. You have already
17 had more than 44 minutes that you requested when we
18 broke off Mr. Merrett's deposition. Let's go ahead.
19 Not to mention the time wasted yesterday when he was
20 available all day, all afternoon.
21 MR. OH: Mr. Moskin --
22 MR. MOSKIN: Oh, Mr. Oh, oh, oh, oh.
23 MR. OH: This is characteristic --
24 MR. MOSKIN: It is very characteristics of you.
25 MR. OH: Of you.

**Alfndrate**

I was waiting for one of them to say something along the lines of this:

"These entire proceedings are such bullgak!"

**AgeOfEgos**

The line of questioning regarding originality dates (2000 vs. 1990) seemed like a bit of a misstep by the good Professor--specifically attributing those dates to the Aliens release (1996 vs. 1986)

Other than that, was a rather pugilistic (but still rather witty at times) read.

**weeble1000**

Generally, an attorney does not suggest calling up the Judge unless he or she is pretty well convinced that the Judge will agree. It is an aggressive posture to take, as judges do not like getting unscheduled phone calls when they have dozens and dozens of active cases on their plate.

Its like Leia pulling out the thermal detonator in front of Jabba. You want to play that way, things can get very real, very fast.

**Yodhrin**

About 2/3 of the way through, very entertaining. I will say that it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Professor is being purposefully obtuse in his answers, rather I would say he is being purposefully precise, and with good reason considering how often the GW lawyer attempts to switch between legal, common, and academic definitions of words and terms in order to attempt to confuse the deponent into giving an answer that can be taken as favourable to GW's case.

I think the most common thing the Chapterhouse lawyer says is "Objection: Misstates testimony", and not once frivolously that I can see so far.

**Saldiven**

Yodhrin wrote:
About 2/3 of the way through, very entertaining. I will say that it's a little disingenuous to suggest that the Professor is being purposefully obtuse in his answers, rather I would say he is being purposefully precise, and with good reason considering how often the GW lawyer attempts to switch between legal, common, and academic definitions of words and terms in order to attempt to confuse the deponent into giving an answer that can be taken as favourable to GW's case.

I think the most common thing the Chapterhouse lawyer says is "Objection: Misstates testimony", and not once frivolously that I can see so far.

I have to agree with this. Especially early in the deposition, the GW attorney keeps trying to elicit a "yes or no" answer to a question worded deliberately such that either answer misstates the facts. For example, the deponent stated early on that he was asked to examine CHS and GW miniature pictures to look for significant similarities. The GW lawyer kept asking questions about whether or not there were similarities, but leaves out the word "significant."

**Kilkrazy**

AgeOfEgos wrote:
The line of questioning regarding originality dates (2000 vs. 1990) seemed like a bit of a misstep by the good Professor--specifically attributing those dates to the Aliens release (1996 vs. 1986)

Other than that, was a rather pugilistic (but still rather witty at times) read.

He makes it clear that setting a closure date of 2,000 does not mean a closure date of 2,000, it means that 2,000 would be the latest possible closure date but it could have been earlier.

He then goes on to say that was thought of on the basis of Aliens being released in 1996, and on remembering it was actually released in 1986 he revises his closure date to 1990.

By closure date I mean the date by which it was no longer possible to have a truly original idea about a future soldier because the meme pool was so full of earlier examples.

**Saldiven**

The more I read of the deposition, the more I think the GW attorney doesn't understand exactly the professor's are of expertise. There's a section towards the beginning where the professor is being continuously asked whether or not a specific GW item was "derived" from a prior work. The professor keeps answering that there's no way for him to answer that. This professor's statements remind me a little of Joseph Campbell's works on comparative religion. Cultural ideas can become so prevalent that people are drawing from those ideas without even being aware that they are doing so.

**AndrewC**

I felt that a good answer to the question would be "yes GW and CHS figures are similar in the same way that a Land Rover and an Aston Martin are similar" In which case Mr H Fords' decendents will be suing just about...everybody.

I wonder why GW never went for Marvel for the HulkSmasher armour? (As if I didn't know!)

Cheers

Andrew

**czakk**

Saldiven wrote:
The more I read of the deposition, the more I think the GW attorney doesn't understand exactly the professor's are of expertise. There's a section towards the beginning where the professor is being continuously asked whether or not a specific GW item was "derived" from a prior work. The professor keeps answering that there's no way for him to answer that. This professor's statements remind me a little of Joseph Campbell's works on comparative religion. Cultural ideas can become so prevalent that people are drawing from those ideas without even being aware that they are doing so.

I don't know GWs litigation strategy, but don't think of it as Mr. Keener not understanding the area of expertise. Think of him as trying to lock in exactly what the Dr's expertise is / what the report is saying and what it isn't saying by asking (obtuse at times) questions. He's not working solely off the top of his head, he has certain things he wants to try to get the Dr to say, and certain things he wants to find out and he's going to have a couple of different angles to try to get them said.

Incorporating all those pictures but not clearly saying what was similar about them and the GW product and saying things like "popular sci fi films and literature" leaves a lot of uncertainty about what he might say on the stand. If (completely hypothetically) Dr Grindley hits the stand at trial and says something like "GW's shoulder pad is clearly derived from this picture of Judge Dredd's pad in AD 2000 comics from 1978" they can go to the deposition and say, you said you couldn't tell that, under oath, are you lying now or were you lying then. Likewise, all those questions about what was in the report and what wasn't (which films, which pictures etc..). He mentions Buzz Lightyear and space marine legs and Mr. Keener jumps all over that for a while.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
----------------------------

One fun thing to think about - this was what, an 8 hour deposition? Add in half a day to prep for the deposition and half a day to read the report and that bit of back and forth between Dr. Grindley and Mr. Keener cost GW (16hrs * $400) $6,400 or more plus the costs of the court recorder.

**Ouze**

I understand the Professors motivations for why he agree to do the depo unpaid (I read that far, about how hard it is for him to find opportunities for academic service) but I'd have a really hard time volunteering so many hours for the benefit of one for profit entity over the other for-profit entity.

**adamsouza**

The good professor must of left there feeling like a genius. That would have been reward enough in itself.

**Magc8Ball**

AndrewC wrote:
I felt that a good answer to the question would be "yes GW and CHS figures are similar in the same way that a Land Rover and an Aston Martin are similar" In which case Mr H Fords' decendents will be suing just about...everybody.

The problem with even that sort of a statement is that I wouldn't put it past GW to then use that statement in the case as "Yes, GW and CHS figures are similar", claiming that as indicating the witness agrees with their case.

**Sean_OBrien**

Ouze wrote:
I understand the Professors motivations for why he agree to do the depo unpaid (I read that far, about how hard it is for him to find opportunities for academic service) but I'd have a really hard time volunteering so many hours for the benefit of one for profit entity over the other for-profit entity.

Other than of course purely altuistic reasons...

Many schools actually have a requirement that staff perform X number of hours of community service per year. 120 some odd hours (done over 2 calendar years) should cover that quota and then some.

**MisterMoon**

Can someone provide a decent Cliffs Notes version of this trial to date?

**MagickalMemories**

I can, but it'll be about... oooh... 119 pages long.

Eric

**adamsouza**

Cliff Notes:

GW asserts they own EVERYTHING that's ever been in 40K no matter how much of it they stole from other sources.

GW doesn't own everything that appears in 40K no matter how many times they say they do.

**Anvildude**

Addendum: GW probably does own some of the stuff that appears in 40K, but it looks like nobody's actually infringing on that.

**clively**

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.

I don't want to derail this train; however, there is an entire population of readers that would disagree with you. His flagship book was Stranger in a Strange Land. Starship Troopers, although great, isn't as well known.

**xcasex**

clively wrote:
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.

I don't want to derail this train; however, there is an entire population of readers that would disagree with you. His flagship book was Stranger in a Strange Land. Starship Troopers, although great, isn't as well known.

Not to be facetious in any way, But the Heinlein book that was made into a movie was called "Starship Troopers" not "Stranger in a strange land" I'll leave the reasoning exercise as to why that is unto yourself, But strictly speaking, I read ST before the movie came out, and I was number 200 something in the queue to read it at the local library, I'll not speculate if that was a local fluke or not.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoiler:

The Prof. Sure does have an intrinsic relation to language, I am impressed.

**clively**

xcasex wrote:

Not to be facetious in any way, But the Heinlein book that was made into a movie was called "Starship Troopers" not "Stranger in a strange land" I'll leave the reasoning exercise as to why that is unto yourself, But strictly speaking, I read ST before the movie came out, and I was number 200 something in the queue to read it at the local library, I'll not speculate if that was a local fluke or not.

I'm assuming you've never read it; otherwise you'd understand that Stranger would never translate well into a movie. Of course, to compare to that number 200 in the queue at your library, in 2012 the Library of Congress named Stranger in a Strange land one of the 88 "Books that Shaped America". So... yeah, I'd say it's a bit more of Heinleins flagship that ST.

**xcasex**

clively wrote:
xcasex wrote:

Not to be facetious in any way, But the Heinlein book that was made into a movie was called "Starship Troopers" not "Stranger in a strange land" I'll leave the reasoning exercise as to why that is unto yourself, But strictly speaking, I read ST before the movie came out, and I was number 200 something in the queue to read it at the local library, I'll not speculate if that was a local fluke or not.

I'm assuming you've never read it; otherwise you'd understand that Stranger would never translate well into a movie. Of course, to compare to that number 200 in the queue at your library, in 2012 the Library of Congress named Stranger in a Strange land one of the 88 "Books that Shaped America". So... yeah, I'd say it's a bit more of Heinleins flagship that ST.

See the tiny flag next to my avatar? That's the Swedish flag, i.e Not united states -- not even the same continent -- And i've read _everything_ by Heinlein, although I did read SiaSL around.. 20 years ago.
But my reading habits are severely OT.

So back on track, Starship Troopers was made into a franchise, it was loosely based on the book.
The franchise includes:
4 Movies
2 Games
1 TV Series
and a few other spinoffs.
All of these are sure to have sparked more than a passing interest in the book over the years.
this link is of interest as well.

**clively**

xcasex wrote:

All of these are sure to have sparked more than a passing interest in the book over the years.
this link is of interest as well.

I understand; it just isn't enough. Add "stranger in a strange land" to the list of search terms; same time period. SiaSL had no movie, no games, no tv series and it still eclipses the searches for ST. So, I'm not entirely certain what it is your trying to show...

**xcasex**

I'm not quite sure what you're aiming at either, But to answer your question, as far as popculture adoption and dissemination thereof, Starship Troopers holds a great deal of mindshare in mainstream culture.
as per this Trends query, i'm still a bit flabberghasted by your claim.

**jonolikespie**

I'd never heard of Stranger until today so I think xcasex has it right, it might be more important in a proper literary sense (I have no clue in that regard) but in this context (ie pop culture) Starship troopers is by far the more recognizable.

Anyway back on topic:

MisterMoon wrote:
Can someone provide a decent Cliffs Notes version of this trial to date?

GW hit CH with a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

GW then filed for the copyright on their shoulder pads.

Said copyright was rejected on the grounds it is simple geometric shapes.

GW failed to mention this before the judge made a summary judgment that they could be and the case went ahead.

At some point GW put forwards 20(ish) year old art saying they have owned that look for decades.

The artists of said art have claimed that GW doesn't actually own the art. GW insisted they did but lost the paperwork and tried to get the artists to sign it over (both refused and I believe one submitted a proper legal document says something to the effect of 'no that's bull gak, they never owned it').

GW got caught out hiding the emails between them and the copyright office and gave a middle school-y response of "No one ever got back to us about it so we thought it was dealt with" response. We have yet to have the judge comment on this afaik but there was mention of fines in the area of $10,000 if he decides GW were deliberately hiding evidence.

(I'm pretty sure it was only after that all came out) GW told the copyright office they will not appeal the decision, instead waiting to see the outcome of the case.

Then the next big thing to happen was this witness thing half of us are still trying to get through.

I'm sure I missed a lot and got at least one thing wrong but that's more or less what I recall since I jumped into this thread 20 odd pages back.

**d-usa**

The "which book is more of a flagship" is surely an interesting discussion, but it's going off-topic.