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.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.

I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.

Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.

The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.

That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.

My bad then, i thought i read it was with out, could and apparently am wrong. If i am, then that is already a significant win.

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.

ClockworkZion wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 fullheadofhair wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Blood Ravens is a chapter created by Relic especially for DoW series, I think GW agreed that CH did not infringe on many of their most important marks in order to not test them, they probably fear they might lose them if been put to the test.

I am not a lawyer but I got that distinct impression. A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them. Better to let CH continue making ultra shoulder pads than to let everyone make them.

Notice however that they got taken down with out prejudice. Meaning GW could come back say 5 years down the line and throw the exact expensive (legal wise) tantrum its throwing now. I see it not as a defeat but rather a tactical retreat on their part, while noble, this lawyers can not be expected to defend CHS pro bono for ever. Thou i am not a lawyer far from it, so it would be nice if some one could confirm.

The only thing they withdrew without prejudice is the hell hound/Hellhound thing. The other stuff has prejudice attached.
Unless I forgot how to read.

That is exactly how I read it - I was starting to think I was the only one. As I understand it, it is only the Hell hound that GW can come back on - the rest is now settled for good.

My bad then, i thought i read it was with out, could and apparently am wrong. If i am, then that is already a significant win.

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

The items listed (except Hellhound) are free for CH to make and sell and GW can NEVER do anything about it period.

 judgedoug wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.

Doesn't it rather mean that they can't sue CHS for those items? If someone else made almost identical versions, that wouldn't stop GW from suing them. They may ultimately lose once it goes to trial (especially if that's allowed as evidence) but the CHS case has shown us that the potential loss would be years and many, many thousands of dollars later... something most companies couldn't afford. I doubt others would be as lucky to find pro bono representation from an IP specializing law firm.

 judgedoug wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.

Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.

Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.

It's not a shoulderpad, it's half of a bowl trimmed with a raised edge with an inverted omega emblazed on it... What?!

 Enigwolf wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

I don't see how that's a "win" when all GW is saying is "your stuff at this time is not infringing on any of this so we aren't going to use this in our lawsuit. Everything else though? That stays in."

There is still a lot of stuff on the table and GW is still taking them to court, so how is a short list of items that isn't being used in this lawsuit a "win"? Did I miss something?

It's a win because it's GW admitted defeat for those items WITH prejudice, meaning they can't sue again for those items.

Alright, but from what I'm gathering that only covers the icons themselves, but not the shoulder pads, doors or anything they attach to in this case that's protected otherwise, meaning all they have at the moment is the legal right to make icon packs without being sued. Now if CHS wins this and then these other elements become available I'd say -that- is a large win. Right now it's the ability to make those symbols as basically icon packs that they've won.

It's not a shoulderpad, it's half of a bowl trimmed with a raised edge with an inverted omega emblazed on it... What?!

Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.

Wasn't one of the points brought up earlier that they never had the copyright for the shoulder pad design?

 Sidstyler wrote:
Wasn't one of the points brought up earlier that they never had the copyright for the shoulder pad design?

They had one for the picture, but not the model part but the Judge said that if the model part is based on the image it should have the same protection so GW used that to get the copyright on the model part too. So it's a protected item unless the Jury say it isn't.

I believe you're right Sid. They were denied a copyright for one of their shoulder pads while they managed to get a copyright for another. If I recall correctly it was the symbol on the shoulder pad which made the difference.

ClockworkZion wrote:
...

Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.

You can't copyright a size. It is a functional element of engineering design.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
...

Well unless GW loses the copyright on the shoulderpad design and how it relates to their miniatures (the size being the key characteristic) the shoulderpads would have to be smaller or -much- larger, or a different shape to get around that from what I see.

You can't copyright a size. It is a functional element of engineering design.

From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.

I mean the physical size of the actual product.

GW cannot "copyright" a shoulder pad of 6mm high or whatever it is because I could make an identically sized "knuckle pad" for 1/3rd scale models, and sell them separately to my models.

(I would also argue about the shoulder to elbow aspect but that is a different argument.)

ClockworkZion wrote:


From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.

The judge should really look at sets of gothic plate jousting armor. The only difference is that those were made of several pieces to allow flexibility rather than cast as a single plate. Many of them even have the same general shape.

So far and so good however I'll stand by my previous comment about GW winning some and losing some. Still too early to tell and there is still plenty enough time for a negotiated settlement.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:


From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.

The judge should really look at sets of gothic plate jousting armor. The only difference is that those were made of several pieces to allow flexibility rather than cast as a single plate. Many of them even have the same general shape.

If I remember the statements made basically the size thing was what made it different enough from other things in the field (sci-fi wargames), so I'd imagine that would only help it.

ClockworkZion wrote:


From what I read out of the summary judgements, the size is precisely why they could copyright it. Shoulder pads are not a new idea, but ones as tall as your shoulder to elbow in relation to the miniature was enough of a twist to the concept to be able to justify it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
A lot of the things that got taken down are pretty important to GW but very hard for them to defend (templar's cross, the cog, the inverted omega symbol). I can't see them dropping some of those unless they were worried the ruling would go against them.

Again, I think it is important not to fall for the trap of GW's lawyers.

Would McDonald's cease to exist, just because they lose a lawsuit claiming that they invented Hamburgers and have the exclusive right to produce these? No.
Would GW cease to exist just because they lose a lawsuit claiming they invented halberds, fur, skulls, grenade launchers, Moorcock's Chaos Star, Roman numbers, arrows, the Maltese Cross, cogwheels etc?
No, of course not. This is just a crazy omnipotence fantasy by a lawyer who knows nothing about this hobby and creative work in general. Let him lose this lawsuit and reputation quickly, so that the creative staff can do its job again.

 Kroothawk wrote:

Would McDonald's cease to exist, just because they lose a lawsuit claiming that they invented Hamburgers and have the exclusive right to produce these? No.

I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.

I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.

I think we got way off topic here.

Back on topic:

Did the trial actually conclude on Friday and was the case handed over to the jury yet? If so how long will we have to usually wait on a verdict in a case this large?

Mohoc wrote:
I think we got way off topic here.

Back on topic:

Did the trial actually conclude on Friday and was the case handed over to the jury yet? If so how long will we have to usually wait on a verdict in a case this large?

I don't know for a fact, Mohoc, but I believe testimony/presenting of cases was due to take 2 weeks, so should be over this Friday. Bear in mind that each side had 19 hours 40 minutes to present...

I imagine that it will take a bit. Though it depends on how convincing the 'experts' were. I expect we'll be hearing back that CHS won, but to what degree is a good question.

 Specs wrote:

I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.

No, they'd blame a supplier and sue them. Then they'd re-brand or pull a slight of hand trick like being sold to another company that the board owns in a 1:1 shares exchange,

 Specs wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I might point out that McDonald's business though dos not hinge on monopolizing it's hamburger IP either. A comparable disaster for McD's would be, say, finding human meat in with the other meat in their hamburgers. Business ending? Maybe not, but tremendously damaging.

I'm fairly certain that if "Big Mac" turned out to be an actual person it would definitely be business ending.

What, "Soylent Mac" will be big seller, and McDs will be praised for fixing the worlds hunger problems.

Please guys - on topic.

Thanks!

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I would disagree on various grounds, however this argument may be moot anyway, since the US Copyright Office told GW many months ago they could not copyright the shoulder pad.

They rules the model part wasn't copyrightable but they'd given a copyright to the artwork. The Judge ruled that the model part was made from the art design and thus was copyrightable (based on a case where a sculpture of a photograph resulted in an IP battle between the photographer and the artist. The photographer won), GW took it back to the Copyright office and was given that protection.

What also helped tip the balance is the fact that the copyright office failed to justify the rejection, thus giving GW some legal standing on the whole thing since it was based on the shoulderpad artwork and the artwork was not denied and there was no grounds to remove the artwork copyright on the basis that it was too generic or anything to copyright.

At least that's been my non-legal background influenced interpretation of that whole mess.

Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.

rigeld2 wrote:
Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.

See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".

ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.

See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".

Um, no.

GW applied for copyright, the CO said no.

GW failed to mention that to the judge, who then ruled it COULD potentially be protected, thus forwarded to the trial.

GW took that statement back to the CO to try and get them to change their decision, which was denied again, and GW lost the right to appeal that decision because they waited too long, expecting to win copyright from the trial.

The shoulderpad by itself is still not a registered copyright, and the trial is what will determine if it can be at all.

Unless there was some massive update that I missed where this was resolved, which I'd imagine we would have noticed.

 Aerethan wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Iirc the copyright office didn't ever grant the copyright, just GWs lawyers used the judges order to try and get it back alley style.

See that's the thing, I read through the meeting done in April when they were establishing the trial date (again) and sorting things out and they mention a few times that the shoulder pads are protected and that it was all settled in "the first part".

Um, no.

GW applied for copyright, the CO said no.

GW failed to mention that to the judge, who then ruled it COULD potentially be protected, thus forwarded to the trial.

GW took that statement back to the CO to try and get them to change their decision, which was denied again, and GW lost the right to appeal that decision because they waited too long, expecting to win copyright from the trial.

The shoulderpad by itself is still not a registered copyright, and the trial is what will determine if it can be at all.

Unless there was some massive update that I missed where this was resolved, which I'd imagine we would have noticed.

I may have missed some things here and there because I was only lightly keeping tabs on this until the trial (because with the way it was going there was no way that there wasn't going to be a trial), but the judge didn't say it could be protected but that it was copyrightable:

THE COURT: I understand it's copyrightable, but
there is still -- I haven't ruled out the defense of fair use.
....
THE COURT: Well, I don't think that I would permit
him to testify that it is not copyrightable because that issue
has been ruled on. It's been ruled on.

The court has passed a judgement that says the shoulder pads are copyrightable back "in the first part" of this whole thing, so this was something that was worked out a long time ago at least.

Quote comes from here. It's in the section about Professor Grindley and how he can't talk about what is and isn't copyrightable in his testimony at the trial (page 17).

I was reading in one of the other documents (they really start to blur together after a while) that part of the verdict was based on the fact that the art was protected and that the model was a 3d representation of the art so it should be able to have the same status. This is related to another case I recall was mentioned in another of GW's IP things recently (regarding the lizard model with the gun) where a case occurred where a photographer successfully sued a sculptor for making a model of his photograph.

Maybe I missed something in the middle, but even if you pitch out the copyright on the shoulderpad itself, GW has the copyright protection on the art and can argue that angle instead. At least that's my understanding of this whole mess as a layman.