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.

 Kwosge wrote:
Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

This paragraph is all over the place legally.

If you design something patentable, you can patent it. If you don't someone can copy it. That's why patents exist. Coke never patented it's formula, so if someone finds out what that formula is and makes their own cola which is identical, Coke has no recourse. A patent is literally the state providing protection to your idea for a period of time in exchange for you sharing what was technically done to the world.

A copyright is different than a patent. There's no copyright in an idea. Copyright tends to exist in writings, paintings, video, etc.. It's a protection of a particular expression of an idea. It doesn't only protect 100% copies, it protects against something substantially similar. Substantially similar is a term of law and is probably not worth going into too much detail, but the general idea is that if an expression of an idea is pretty different, it doesn't infringe.

And the other thing your paragraph gets into is corporate law and the duties owed in some cases. Probably a contract would exist to prevent the stealing too.

I watched a lot of the Leveson Inquiry live and even that got dull at times. And that literally had an all star cast.

czakk wrote:
The northern district of illinois is part of the cameras in the court project (apparently). While they aren't filming this trial, you can see another hearing to get an idea of what goes on before you go in. (Sloan v Zurn - evidentiary hearing on patent claim construction I think). You get to see some expert evidence and some submissions to the court.

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/playvideos.htm

As you can see, it's a serious business but nothing magical.

Too bad there are no cameras there. I'd love to see someone write it up as a BatRep. LOL


Eric


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kwosge wrote:
Also, for those of you who think that you can’t own, in a literal since, an idea, you are completely wrong. Again, if I design a product and pitched it to a company or financial backer to make that product a reality, what is stopping that company or backer from taking that idea and completely cutting my out of the equation after I did all the work and research on it and spent my own money creating the design? NDAs and IP laws. If you removed those from US law then corporate espionage would run rampant and innovation would completely halt because there would be no money in it. Why would I design a new product if someone could come along, take my design, and create the finished product without my permission? I wouldn’t. No one would. I am so glad most of you aren’t in the legal system. You would really mess everything up.

You're speaking in a lot of absolutes and facts there.

Would you please share what your legal knowledge is? Legal assistant, law student, lawyer, judge, etc?

I ask because there are a number of lawyers on here who disagree with you. If you are not a lawyer or other legal-eagle type, you really should indicate that you are stating OPINION and not FACT. Otherwise, it gives the impression that you're speaking as if you have some (professional) idea of what you're talking about.

Eric

 MagickalMemories wrote:

czakk wrote:
The northern district of illinois is part of the cameras in the court project (apparently). While they aren't filming this trial, you can see another hearing to get an idea of what goes on before you go in. (Sloan v Zurn - evidentiary hearing on patent claim construction I think). You get to see some expert evidence and some submissions to the court.

http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/playvideos.htm

As you can see, it's a serious business but nothing magical.

Too bad there are no cameras there. I'd love to see someone write it up as a BatRep. LOL


Eric

It would seriously be the most boring batrep.

We've pretty much seen all the excitement there is in this case, the trial itself is mostly going to be a condensed, concise form of presenting what we've already seen to the jury for ruling. If you've been paying attention for the past two years, it's just a matter of waiting on the results now.

Having sat through a few trials as a viewer, even criminal trials are fairly tedious and boring for the layman.

I'd still like to at least hear opening and closing arguments. As much tedium as there may be, hearing GW speak in such an official capacity on these subjects is quite interesting.

Nah, If you get the right guy to write it (he's got to interject personal commentary, like a sports announcer), it would be hilarious.

Eric

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I watched a lot of the Leveson Inquiry live and even that got dull at times. And that literally had an all star cast.

Yeah, watching a bunch of people explain wargaming to a jury? Yawnsville.

I just want to here the good doc talk circles around GWs again. It makes me happy:

Enigwolf wrote:
Even more strict than church, I'd say. I'd wear a suit regardless, most everyone else in the courtroom is going to be, and you might feel awkward if you walk in wearing casual attire.

I'm a software geek, I never feel self-conscious in casual clothes (t-shirt and shorts today ) On the other hand, I'd feel self-conscious going to work in the morning in suit. I'll check it out though, and maybe drop in on Friday afternoon to see what it's all about.

Aerethan wrote:I'd still like to at least hear opening and closing arguments. As much tedium as there may be, hearing GW speak in such an official capacity on these subjects is quite interesting.

This, so this. You rarely ever get to hear them talk about their official stances on things without fluff writing. Maybe we should get GW into court more often so we can hear them talk about how they feel about their place in the wargaming industry and their interactions with players.

Redbeard wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:
Even more strict than church, I'd say. I'd wear a suit regardless, most everyone else in the courtroom is going to be, and you might feel awkward if you walk in wearing casual attire.

I'm a software geek, I never feel self-conscious in casual clothes (t-shirt and shorts today ) On the other hand, I'd feel self-conscious going to work in the morning in suit. I'll check it out though, and maybe drop in on Friday afternoon to see what it's all about.

Lucky. I was referring more to walking into the court room and looking like a bum with everyone dressed up in suits and feeling awkward about the non-conformity of it all, hahah. Dress shirt and jeans/pants is probably your best bet for the business casual in-between!

We need to smuggle someone in with a pocket digital recorder, who can upload the proceedings to a podcast afterwards.

The partial consent judgment that was mentioned in the transcripts has been posted.

Also, GWs objections to testimony ruled on. 20 minutes docked from them as well, so CHS and GW are both down 20 minutes each.

 Aerethan wrote:
I'd still like to at least hear opening and closing arguments. As much tedium as there may be, hearing GW speak in such an official capacity on these subjects is quite interesting.

I dunno.. it's kind of like sometimes hearing an actor or musician you like talk about something, and them then not coming up to scratch and your enjoyment of their talent then being reduced as a result.

In the same way my estimation of at least 2 'legends' of GW has dropped somewhat as things said during events so far.

Interesting. They came to a conclusion that a whole bunch of copyrights and trademarks were not infringed in fact. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but the court document for the Consent has two spellings of the IG flamethrower tank - "Hellhound" and "Hell Hound". Was this a mistake or intentional?

I am glad at least one post in this page was on topic. Some of the moderatorators in this forum are really annul and you could get baned for OT postings.

Damn straight. I'm watching you.... --J

What percentage of claims were settled by decree?

Visiting court is weird. I always remember visiting court as a student, to witness a criminal trial, and I knew the defendant.

Really weird. I knew he was as guilty as sin, and it was educational to listen to the defence try and spin the evidence from factual to circumstancial.

Guilty as charged, though we never found out on the sentence.

Sorry completely OT.

Cheers

Andrew

czakk wrote:
The partial consent judgment that was mentioned in the transcripts has been posted.

Also, GWs objections to testimony ruled on. 20 minutes docked from them as well, so CHS and GW are both down 20 minutes each.

Two questions, czakk - what were CHS fined 20 minutes for? And is the good Doctor clear to testify, as far as we know?

 Dysartes wrote:

czakk wrote:
The partial consent judgment that was mentioned in the transcripts has been posted.

Also, GWs objections to testimony ruled on. 20 minutes docked from them as well, so CHS and GW are both down 20 minutes each.

Two questions, czakk - what were CHS fined 20 minutes for? And is the good Doctor clear to testify, as far as we know?

Same thing as GW, time spent ruling on their objections to bits of depositions. They are doing it ahead of time so it doesn't break the flow of the trial / distract the jury. So it's not really a 'fine' per se (although it looks a bit like one), just accounting for time spent dealing with matters.

Yes, Grindley is in, subject to some restrictions on what he can talk about. See the attached file for the order.

God, I cannot wait for the Grindley testimony transcript.

Would it make sense to start a separate thread for discussing the case, and leave this one for cold hard factual updates?

They're likely to amount to the same thing, Azreal. Posting of the 'facts', queries/explanations of what the 'facts' 'mean', etc.

So if I understand what I have read:

1) first blood over copyright and trade mark issues goes to CHS.

2) 2nd blood to CHS over Grindly by defeating GW big to exclude his testimony but a limited win to GW by placing some restrictions on him (though restriction I am sure that can be over come through cleaver language and lawyering).

 Redbeard wrote:
Okay, to any of the lawyers on this thread. I'm in Chicago, work downtown, and am mere blocks from the courthouse on Dearborn.

If, on a whim, I wanted to wander over on my lunch break or whatever, would that be possible? Is there an audience chamber for these sorts of trials, like they show on TV shows? Do you need any sort of credentials to get in?

Yea, you can just walk right in. You should be respectful though. Walk in quietly, don't attract too much attention if a witness is on the stand. But it is a public trial. The door is open, you can walk right in. No pictures or recording devices though, you'll have to take notes.

czakk has a more complete response. I will add that there is no dress code, so you do not have to wear a suit.

You are not allowed to connect to the internet in the courtroom either. Czakk is very right, turn off your phone. Other than that, have fun. Doubtless, some of the testimony will be dry as sin, so you could have to watch for a while before you saw something particularly interesting. Although, now that I think about it, three days in...that's what? 9:30 to 5:00 71/2 hours, minus a few breaks and lunch, so maybe another 2 hours.

So 5 1/2 hours of actual testimony per day, three days...16.5 hours...You'd have to presume or speculate about witness order and time, but GW's case is probably at least half over by now. If you went on Friday, you would probably have missed all of Merrett and GW's live witnesses. Nick was going to be called adverse, so he would...well, maybe you'd catch Nick, or Goodwin. I think Goodwin was last on GW's list. You may see a CHS expert. That could be interesting.

The community is seriously gaking themselves over that one statement? He's explaining what GW do to a jury in layman's terms, people who've literally never heard of warhammer. "Toy soldiers" is pretty much the best you can do.

Bryll, while I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, it causes problems for them further down the line as to what legal protection they are entitled to claim. As I understand it, GW have went from claiming that they produce artistic models and collectable figurines to 'nah, we just make toy soldiers'.

From what I can see, Merrett never said 'in laymans terms' or any other suitable qualifier, he just said it as a statement of fact.

Major oops.

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Bryll, while I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, it causes problems for them further down the line as to what legal protection they are entitled to claim. As I understand it, GW have went from claiming that they produce artistic models and collectable figurines to 'nah, we just make toy soldiers'.

From what I can see, Merrett never said 'in laymans terms' or any other suitable qualifier, he just said it as a statement of fact.

Major oops.

Cheers

Andrew

I'm rather sure GWs argument has always been both, that they are toy soldiers, but that they are also artistic collectable models. I know some have said that if they were to call them "toy soldiers" that they wouldn't be allowed protection by copyright (but only fall under design rights), but I'm not sure that's an accurate legal position. At any rate, one assumes that from a legal standpoint they figure it doesn't matter, as GW has described the minis as toy soldiers before anyhow.

Design rights don't exist in the US. We only have copyright, trademark, and patents.

Design rights are for UK law, and there is a ton of cases where large companies lost their rights to items due to the expiration of said design rights(stormtroopers). From what I understand, all toys in the UK only qualify for design rights, and GW just admitted that they make toys and not art.

GW could very well have said "We make customizable, collectible figurines which can be used in tabletop games". Instead they said "we make toy soldiers". The put themselves on the same ground as army men and G.I. Joe which are also toy soldiers.

Yeah, when explaining what I paint to people at work, I call them "small model kits" or "metal sculptures". Toy Soldiers conjures up thoughts of green army men. I'm sure most laypeople can understand a Revell or Airfix model kit almost as easily as a toy soldier.

czakk wrote:
Yes, Grindley is in, subject to some restrictions on what he can talk about. See the attached file for the order.

One more question for you, czakk, then I'll leave the matter be - having read that judgement, how much of an issue compared to Dr Grindley's previous testimony will those restrictions be?