Chapterhouse Lawsuit - Settlement reached, Appeals withdrawn - Pg 234!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

weeble1000 wrote:

What did I say czakk? I believe I called it pretty accurately.

Yup, now we will see what Justice Kennelly does with it.

**czakk**

Oral rulings? Curses!

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephonic status hearing
held on 5/9/2013.

The Court made oral rulings regarding the disputed matters contained
within the 5/7/13 status report (dkt. no. 364).

Because no chambers copy of the 5/6/13
status report (dkt. no. 363) had been provided, the Court was unable to make rulings on
the disputed matters in that report.

The Court will deal with them in due course, though
not necessarily prior to trial.

Revised deposition designations, along with 4−to−a−page
hard copies of the pertinent deposition transcripts, are to be submitted by 5/30/13, along
with a list prioritizing them in terms of when during the trial each deposition will be
presented.

The parties are to confer regarding a schedule concerning the anticipated
motion by plaintiff to bar testimony by expert witness Grindley, so that the matter is fully
briefed by 5/29/13. (mk)

364 was the claims chart.

363 was the trademark issue.

**Aerethan**

czakk wrote:
Oral rulings? Curses!

MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephonic status hearing
held on 5/9/2013.

The Court made oral rulings regarding the disputed matters contained
within the 5/7/13 status report (dkt. no. 364).

Because no chambers copy of the 5/6/13
status report (dkt. no. 363) had been provided, the Court was unable to make rulings on
the disputed matters in that report.

The Court will deal with them in due course, though
not necessarily prior to trial.

Revised deposition designations, along with 4−to−a−page
hard copies of the pertinent deposition transcripts, are to be submitted by 5/30/13, along
with a list prioritizing them in terms of when during the trial each deposition will be
presented.

The parties are to confer regarding a schedule concerning the anticipated
motion by plaintiff to bar testimony by expert witness Grindley, so that the matter is fully
briefed by 5/29/13. (mk)

cliff notes?

**czakk**

If we are lucky we'll get some cliff notes or a transcript at some point. Or he may type up a proper ruling.

**poda_t**

Aerethan wrote:

cliff notes?

Yes. Cliff notes. though I'm wondering about the reality of Cliff Notes actually doing anything about this, but I understand the idea..

Edit: ....wait... i think i misunderstood something here.... Arses!

**Aerethan**

I was requesting a layman explanation of what all that meant, as it is a bit difficult to comprehend, and I'm tired.

**Sean_OBrien**

Not much to summarize, unfortunately. The judge had counsel on the phone for both parties. He ruled on some of the disputedissues relating to the claims chart.

He didnt have a copy of the trademark paperwork in front of him, so he got an oral update from both sides and told him he needed more time to review the issues.

He then told them how he wanted the deposition paperwork organized for trial.

Since he is assuming GW will attempt to bar the CHS expert from testifying, he told them to get their stuff sorted out by the end of the month so he can rule on that as well.

Other than that, we have to wait for the written document to show up for any more details (what might the actual ruling entail).

**Azazelx**

weeble1000 wrote:

Read Dr. Grindley's expert report. What is amusing about it is that just by looking at the GW asserted works, he postulated that GW artists may have seen certain pre-existing works, and several of those EXACT works were found in GW's design studio.

Link, please?

**Aerethan**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
Not much to summarize, unfortunately. The judge had counsel on the phone for both parties. He ruled on some of the disputedissues relating to the claims chart.

He didnt have a copy of the trademark paperwork in front of him, so he got an oral update from both sides and told him he needed more time to review the issues.

He then told them how he wanted the deposition paperwork organized for trial.

Since he is assuming GW will attempt to bar the CHS expert from testifying, he told them to get their stuff sorted out by the end of the month so he can rule on that as well.

Other than that, we have to wait for the written document to show up for any more details (what might the actual ruling entail).

Much thanks.

**Saldiven**

Sean_OBrien wrote:
Since he is assuming GW will attempt to bar the CHS expert from testifying, he told them to get their stuff sorted out by the end of the month so he can rule on that as well.

Out of curiosity, could you postulate some bases upon which GW would argue for Grindley's testimony being barred?

**TheAuldGrump**

Saldiven wrote:
Sean_OBrien wrote:
Since he is assuming GW will attempt to bar the CHS expert from testifying, he told them to get their stuff sorted out by the end of the month so he can rule on that as well.

Out of curiosity, could you postulate some bases upon which GW would argue for Grindley's testimony being barred?

He doesn't like us! Waaahhhh!

Oh, you want a valid reason in the eyes of the law?...

Not sure that they have one.

The Auld Grump

**weeble1000**

GW already lost a MIL on Grindley. There must be something new. He may have been deposed again regarding his supplemental report, and something could have come up in the depo.

In any case, if Allen Merrett is testifying about the similarities between the works at issue, anyone should be able to, expert or no. Judge Kennelly has ruled that such comparisons are a matter of lay opinion. Dr. Grindley has an EXPERT opinion as to infringement and copyrightability. Regardless of whether he remains qualified as an expert, I expect the Court will have to allow him to testify to facts at the very least.

I do not expect Dr. Grindley's testimony will be curtailed much, if at all.

**Dysartes**

weeble1000 wrote:
GW already lost a MIL on Grindley. There must be something new. He may have been deposed again regarding his supplemental report, and something could have come up in the depo.

Apologies, weeble, but 'tis late and I didn't get much sleep last night - what's a MIL?

**rigeld2**

Motion in Limine iirc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_in_limine

**Aerethan**

Dysartes wrote:
weeble1000 wrote:
GW already lost a MIL on Grindley. There must be something new. He may have been deposed again regarding his supplemental report, and something could have come up in the depo.

Apologies, weeble, but 'tis late and I didn't get much sleep last night - what's a MIL?

Motion in limine iirc(may be mispelling that).

**wowsmash**

I hope not. Dr Grindley was actually fun to read. You know GW lawyer isn't looking forward to him on the stand.

**TheAuldGrump**

wowsmash wrote:
I hope not. Dr Grindley was actually fun to read. You know GW lawyer isn't looking forward to him on the stand.

Dr. Grindley being engaging is likely the core of why GW does not want him on the stand.

He can convey the concepts clearly and in a manner that will linger in the jurors' minds.

GW would much rather that CH employ a less entertaining witness - since the same information, from a less memorable source, will likely be more-or-less ignored by the same jury. The same difference as the same class being taught by an interesting teacher or a dull one.

Reading his previous testimony... I suspect that Dr. Grindley is a very good teacher.

The Auld Grump

**czakk**

GWs motion to exclude Grindley. There are exhibits as well, but I'm not going to pay for them.

**Mohoc**

czakk wrote:
GWs motion to exclude Grindley. There are exhibits as well, but I'm not going to pay for them.

It reads like "We are GW. Your opinion is irrelevant. Our opinion is the truth. Go away."

**Trasvi**

Kind of agree with GW's lawyer there. Grindley was very much of the opinion "there is nothing new under the sun"

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

While that may be true from a literary or philosophical standpoint, it doesn't seem very conducive to legal debate.

**Aerethan**

Trasvi wrote:
Kind of agree with GW's lawyer there. Grindley was very much of the opinion "there is nothing new under the sun"

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

While that may be true from a literary or philosophical standpoint, it doesn't seem very conducive to legal debate.

There are only so many ways to skin a cat.

That is the saying, and it certainly applies to this. There are only so many ways to make power armor in humanoid shape. History has already claimed the vast majority of basic armor design.

How many different ways are there to protect ones shoulder with metal?

**Janthkin**

Put it this way - if he could envision it, it likely wouldn't be an original expression. It's precisely those things he can't envision that would be an easy example of an original expression.

**skyth**

I'm curious what the response from CHS will be to that.

**Bolognesus**

Not terribly familiar with rules of evidence in jury-based systems but wouldn't the proper response to a witness being "wrong" in a partys opinion be to refute any such testimony with evidence of their own, rather than have it excluded - *especially* where a jury's involved?

**BaronIveagh**

Bolognesus wrote:
Not terribly familiar with rules of evidence in jury-based systems but wouldn't the proper response to a witness being "wrong" in a partys opinion be to refute any such testimony with evidence of their own, rather than have it excluded - *especially* where a jury's involved?

There is none because he really isn't. I think GW is banking on the jury's ignorance and a big flashy show of their own to bluff their way through this. G is bad for this plan n a big way as he tends to educate juries. Educated jurors are bad for GW's plan.

**czakk**

Bolognesus wrote:
Not terribly familiar with rules of evidence in jury-based systems but wouldn't the proper response to a witness being "wrong" in a partys opinion be to refute any such testimony with evidence of their own, rather than have it excluded - *especially* where a jury's involved?

Experts are a bit different than normal witnesses. Witnesses aren't supposed to give their opinions, just facts. Experts are allowed to give opinion evidence. Because they are giving their opinion, and because the jury hears that they are 'experts' (and so might give their testimony special weight) there are generally special rules about what they can say on the stand and in their reports.

There are usually rules about not testifying about anything that wasn't in your report as well.

But yes, you can have dueling experts in a lawsuit - there were two experts earlier in the case about english copyright law.

**mullet_steve**

sometimes dueling experts can be hilariously funny.... I have an example but it's a little off topic..

Spoiler:

**Bolognesus**

czakk wrote:
Bolognesus wrote:
Not terribly familiar with rules of evidence in jury-based systems but wouldn't the proper response to a witness being "wrong" in a partys opinion be to refute any such testimony with evidence of their own, rather than have it excluded - *especially* where a jury's involved?

Experts are a bit different than normal witnesses. Witnesses aren't supposed to give their opinions, just facts. Experts are allowed to give opinion evidence. Because they are giving their opinion, and because the jury hears that they are 'experts' (and so might give their testimony special weight) there are generally special rules about what they can say on the stand and in their reports.

There are usually rules about not testifying about anything that wasn't in your report as well.

But yes, you can have dueling experts in a lawsuit - there were two experts earlier in the case about english copyright law.

Hmm, fair 'nuff. Thanks

**RiTides**

Trasvi wrote:
Kind of agree with GW's lawyer there. Grindley was very much of the opinion "there is nothing new under the sun"

Q. I understand. You've already testified you don't believe there's any possible
original expression of a Space Marines future warrior that's possible since 1990.
A. Right.

While that may be true from a literary or philosophical standpoint, it doesn't seem very conducive to legal debate.

I thought of that when seeing this yesterday, a Wikipedia entry for the upcoming Destiny video game by Bungie:

Titans, which favor heavy weapons and melee attacks and are intended to be reminiscent of the classic "future soldier", were inspired by Bungie's own Halo Master Chief, Stormtroopers, and other "space marines" from science fiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_(video_game)

I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term. Hard to get much more generic, I guess "space soldier" would qualify, but as that could cover an even broader range (i.e. almost any combatant) "space marine" referring to an armored and highly trained soldier fighting in space has become ubiquitous.

**sourclams**

RiTides wrote:
I personally believe that "space marine" has well and truly left the dock... it's a very generic term.

It would seem that the expert agrees with you.