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.

Recap hasn't been updated since 333, so has Prof Grindley been excluded?

Cheers

Andrew

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

14. Have you, a relative or close friend, ever been a member of a union?

Not quite sure about this one, but I assume it goes towards the idea of workers' rights, which could be part of the commission aspect, as GW is trying to claim they own the works of commissioned artists (and that GW just happened to lose the original contracts stating that ownership)

My thoughts on it are actually that much of the time Unions are seen as adversarial to large companies. GW may be feeling that Union members or friends/family of union members might not be well disposed toward a big corporation trying to force the little guy to bend a knee.

weeble1000 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

Clothing is significant. Everybody has different tricks. I always check to see who takes a smoke break, for example. But generally speaking, choice of dress can be useful information.

Makes mental note to dress poorly next time one gets called for Jury Duty.

I fell asleep during juror selection once, and they still picked me.

 adamsouza wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

 AduroT wrote:
Do you ever look at the potential jurors' shoes? Odd question, but when my mom was working with a layer back during a trial thing, her layer said she would always look at their shoes, and those with nicer shoes were generally more intelligent and responsible people and would make greater jurors in her experience.

Clothing is significant. Everybody has different tricks. I always check to see who takes a smoke break, for example. But generally speaking, choice of dress can be useful information.

Makes mental note to dress poorly next time one gets called for Jury Duty.

I fell asleep during juror selection once, and they still picked me.

They might have wanted an empty chair. Most deliberations are substantively limited to 3-4 jurors. Maybe they figured that you would fill a seat and not participate much. It would be very risky to make that judgement based solely on the fact that you fell asleep.

 AndrewC wrote:
Recap hasn't been updated since 333, so has Prof Grindley been excluded?

Cheers

Andrew

There is a more up to date list here:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

369 and 370 are up. Both have exhibits I haven't paid for. 370's are probably more interesting.

369 is CHS giving GW a pretty rough ride over their motion. Worth a read. 370 is a list of the depositions both sides intend to use at trial, with the depositions themselves showing up as exhibits. Also, I think there are some objections which if I recall correctly Kennelly said would count against their trial time.



Interesting bit quoted from a hearing:

The Court also noted at the hearing on GW’s first motion in limine, that even though it held that GW’s shoulder pads had copyrightable elements, CHS could still argue “there’s a bazillion and one shoulder pads out there” so “the defense of fair use might be, well, [it] isn’t all that copyrightable.” Cooper Decl. Ex. 1, 4/10/13 Tr. at 61:4-13. GW’s second bite at the apple on this identical issue should be denied.

So Kennelly is a bit more aware of how generic shoulder pads are than we gave him credit for based on his summary judgment.


And a good quote from the judge about Grindley's use of pictures:

As the Court previously ruled, this type of comparison is sufficient under the circumstances:

See, I've got to tell you, Mr. Keener, when you tell me that all Grindley says is, well, anybody looking at this chart could figure out what I was going to say about it, I think I could have. I'm not sure I'm anybody, but when I see this what I'm looking at here, it's pretty obvious that what he's going to say is that, you know, the stuff that they're saying that was infringed here, it's out there. There's a lot of things like this.

So the judge is finally putting his opinion on some items! Methinks this will be a good trial.

Dr. Grindley is my new hero... also he's on twitter, but apparently uses it with his Yelp app... a shame really.

So.. what I took from those last documents was GW tried to exclude Grindley from being a witness, they were shot down but told they could try to exclude his supplemental report, and they took that as an ok to refile the same motion to exclude him as a witness (just with different wording).
That about sum it up?

 jonolikespie wrote:
So.. what I took from those last documents was GW tried to exclude Grindley from being a witness, they were shot down but told they could try to exclude his supplemental report, and they took that as an ok to refile the same motion to exclude him as a witness (just with different wording).
That about sum it up?

Yea, that about sums it up.

And we've now seen how the Judge feels about these issues. Kennelly is basically saying, 'Yea, well, these things Grindley is showing look a whole hell of a lot alike GW's artwork. I think that is pretty clear, and you don't have to be an expert to see that.'

That's a rough ride for GW. The Judge has also basically said that a finding of from the jury of non-infringement on the shoulder pads, either by straight non-infringement or via fair use, basically means GW's shoulder pad copyright is so narrow as to be meaningless.

Have a fun time at trial GW.

Edit: Oh, and if the jury does something like, say, invalidating the 'Space Marine' trademark, I wonder who gets to break the bad news to Tom Kirby. And I also wonder what all of those new IP licensees will think about a piece of property they have just paid for suddenly ceasing to exist.

weeble1000 wrote:


Edit: Oh, and if the jury does something like, say, invalidating the 'Space Marine' trademark, I wonder who gets to break the bad news to Tom Kirby. And I also wonder what all of those new IP licensees will think about a piece of property they have just paid for suddenly ceasing to exist.

Can a jury invalidate a trademark?

 Morpheus wrote:
Can a jury invalidate a trademark?

Absolutely, just like they can invalidate a patent.

How often does that actually happen though?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
How often does that actually happen though?

It depends. I don't do many trademark cases, as they rarely go to trial. However, an unregistered mark is not entitled to a presumption of validity, so the standard of proof is merely a preponderance of the evidence; i.e. more likely true than not.

'Space Marine' is a registered mark, but it is arguably a very, very, very weak mark, if it is valid at all. The phrase "Space Marine" is generic, descriptive, in common usage, and has been used several times in the same category of goods prior to GW's usage of the mark. Games Workshop has admitted that it has done no advertising in 30 years of business, and the Judge has already ruled that none of Games Workshop's marks are famous. Strictly speaking, that is not really germane to a determination of validity, but since when is a juror able to appropriately compartmentalize evidence?

Patents are by far more difficult to invalidate than trademarks, and I have seen plenty of patents invalidated. Patents are always entitled to a presumption of validity, and as a general rule are particularly difficult to invalidate. Nevertheless, it happens more often than you might think.

Invalidating a trademark? My guess is that it is much easier to do in comparison. patents are hard to invalidate because they appear to be the product of hard work. They go through a presumably rigorous period of examination and sometimes re-examination, presumably by experts in the field of art. A patent can relate complex technology, and be the product of years of work and/or hundreds of millions of dollars of R&D. Patents can be the cornerstone and the basis for the existence of tangible products like life-saving medication or cell phones. Patents are inventions, ostensibly real things, rather than merely a way to identify the creator of that thing.

Who on the jury will have heard of Games Workshop? Who on the jury will have heard of Warhammer 40,000? Who on the jury will know what table-top wargaming is?

Who on the jury will have seen Aliens? Who on the jury will know what Star Wars is? Who on the jury will know exactly who Buzz Lightyear is and what he looks like?

Invalidating the Space Marine mark...who knows. If you were Alan Merrett, would you trust 12 people in Chicago who didn't know Games Workshop from a hole in the ground? Would you walk into trial believing that there was no way, no way at all, that those 12 people would take away the 'Space Marine' trademark?

And it aint just Space Marine on the chopping block. Everything is on the block. Everything GW has asserted is on the block and the ax is in the air.

Have fun at trial GW.

But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Pending the outcome of the trial, perhaps the "titans" of this thread could help work out a boilerplate response to a GW C&D?
You know, with proper reference to this case, with a wording that implies no admission of guilt and message of "Feth off" worded nicely.

I realize that each answer depends very much on the exact wording of the C&D in question, but I still think it would be very helpful to small businesses presented with a C&D from GW.
Furthermore I very much acknowledge that securing proper legal advice is by far the safest course of action, and that such a boilerplate answer couldn't and shouldn't be seen as a "get-out-jail-free" card.
Lastly such a boilerplate answer could not refer to our legal "titans" in any way, shape or form as I understand that while some of you have a proper legal education your are not OUR legal representatives.

And other really annoying caveats......

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

This post actually demonstrated the exact reason why such a boilerplate answer would be helpful.
Some of us might need help wording the proper caveats and finding the proper caveats to word.

So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

He seems to be fairly well liked by students (http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=815398). And given the length of his deposition (like 8 hours?) without him losing his temper, he should be able to handle being on the stand.

 poda_t wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Except that the US Copyright Office has refused to register the Space Marine shoulder pad. Except that in the UK, toys are probably covered by design right, meaning the bulk of GW's product range can no longer be protected.

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

He held his cool longer than the GW lawyer in that interview thing we all read, if he does come across dickish at all I think it'll be overshadowed by GWs reaction. I also imagine if he isn't asked the same question 8 times in a row he'd be much more pleasant.

czakk wrote:

There is a more up to date list here:

http://ia700405.us.archive.org/18/items/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791/gov.uscourts.ilnd.250791.docket.html

Thank you czakk.

Andrew


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So - how do you think Dr. Grindley is likely to come across to a jury, from how he depo'd? Do you think they'll be turned off by his... dickishness, shall we say? Or do you think he will be a sympathetic figure for his snappy and often humorous answers?

I think Dr Grindley is an extremely intelligent individual, and as such will tailor his responses to his audience. He knew that the GW team were gunning for him during the depo and responded accordingly. I also think that he will be aware that the jury won't be up to 'clever' answers but will answer with candour and humour. I think thats why GW are so concerned about him.

Cheers

Andrew

Will GW try to hinder the US Copyright Office from taking part in the trial?

Steelmage99 wrote:
What does the smoke break tell you?

No idea what it means to a lawyer but from my standpoint with working with people who both smoke and do not smoke I do note some differences.

However as a non smoker myself I must say I have no hard evidence just anecdotal evidence. The closest thing I can describe it to is having to pee.
Depending on how many and how often someone smoked the point where the craving for the next nicotine fix begins, which is where peeing comes in. If you really have to pee but don't you can forget about it for a time, then you begin to think about it more often, become more and more uncomfortable until you have to leave whatever it is you are doing to go to the bathroom. If you are thinking about peeing you are not thinking about what you are doing as much as you would if your bladder was empty.
Therefore, if the person is craving their nicotine fix they aren't in the room with you as much as someone who is not craving. I notice it in psychotherapy and on ward rounds all the time, sometimes it is pointless going on with the person until they have gone and had a smoke, then they can concentrate on what is happening again.

Noel

 Kroothawk wrote:
Will GW try to hinder the US Copyright Office from taking part in the trial?

The copyright office has the right to show up, they can't be stopped from taking part. However, they don't have to show up if they don't feel like it.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Pending the outcome of the trial, perhaps the "titans" of this thread could help work out a boilerplate response to a GW C&D?
You know, with proper reference to this case, with a wording that implies no admission of guilt and message of "Feth off" worded nicely.

I realize that each answer depends very much on the exact wording of the C&D in question, but I still think it would be very helpful to small businesses presented with a C&D from GW.
Furthermore I very much acknowledge that securing proper legal advice is by far the safest course of action, and that such a boilerplate answer couldn't and shouldn't be seen as a "get-out-jail-free" card.
Lastly such a boilerplate answer could not refer to our legal "titans" in any way, shape or form as I understand that while some of you have a proper legal education your are not OUR legal representatives.

And other really annoying caveats......

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

This post actually demonstrated the exact reason why such a boilerplate answer would be helpful.
Some of us might need help wording the proper caveats and finding the proper caveats to word.

I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

weeble1000 wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

 Miguelsan wrote:
But even the worst case scenario will allow GW to try to apeal and still send C&D letters to intimidate 3rd party bits. Or does a clear victory for CHS open the floodgates on GW "not so set in stone" trademarks?

M.

my take on this is case will determine the current boundaries of what GW can protect, it all depends on how the case goes. If GW loses, it doesn't mean free game on everything, just free game on what GW lost on. In a worst case scenario, GW will likely get its gak together, get some proper copyrights filed. In the best case scenario, whatever copyrights GW does file for, will probably be vague to take advantage of the precedent. Either way, this kind of speculation is off topic for this thread, and we'll start seeing in about a month or two what the fallout is.

edit: Haaaah. Best and worst case scenarios are as described from the perspective of the plaintiff: GW

Except that the US Copyright Office has refused to register the Space Marine shoulder pad. Except that in the UK, toys are probably covered by design right, meaning the bulk of GW's product range can no longer be protected.

well, i'm not talking about the pad. How about the winged teardrop, or the stylised angular/stone block imperial eagle? THESE are things that can definately be protected... or... maybe not ?

Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

 darkPrince010 wrote:


I'd like to second this, as I think a lot of people are scared away from being a CHS-style compatible-bits startup precisely because they don't know or have the resources to find out how to respond to a GW C&D letter. A response letter, even a generic one, would really help small startups in figuring out how to respond.

Anything generic or boilerplate wouldn't be worth anything and might actually harm you. If you get a C&D, you need real legal advice that is specific to your situation.

Spend the money and get legal advice before starting a business. You might not get a C&D, they might just sue you like they did CHS.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably a court would have to decide if the GW double headed eagle was sufficiently original to be worthy of copyright.

My personal view is that the only original element is the blindfold, which is something I had never noticed in 30+ years of looking at 40K products.

Blindfold? I don't think I recall ever seeing an actual blindfold. I do know only one head shows as having an eye though.