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.

That cover image was also used for an Uriah Heep album in 2001. Same year that the Tau were released.

STUCARIUS wrote:
Holy Cow! Reading the transcript!

Does Alan Merrit know what perjury is? I've talked to GW sculptors going way back to the early 90's at GW events. WAY before all this started. They were all given reference materials, medieval arms books and tons of other stuff.....He is absolutely lying his ass off.....

That level of lying in an American court room is not all that common by a corporate functionary.

To be fair.. surely this is just common sense? I'm not sure what he is trying to prove.

Well .. have to say that's my illusion of a giant of the industry shattered in Merrett. In between this and the not touching CHS miniatures (on the grounds that they are 'poisonous'), have to say he is not coming out of this very well..

So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

So you're hoping that GW wins not because Chapterhouse have broken a law but because you personally don't like their products?

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

Wait. so instead of just not buying there stuff, like a normal person would do if they dislike something. You think screw case law, GW should win anyways. Hope you never end up in front of a jury with poeple like you on it.

 Alfndrate wrote:

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

We are seeing portions of transcripts that CHS attached to a motion in order to support their argument. Definitely not the whole story, but also not doctored or edited.

czakk wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

We are seeing portions of transcripts that CHS attached to a motion in order to support their argument. Definitely not the whole story, but also not doctored or edited.

Wouldn't it by definition be "edited" even if that editing is done completely within the scope of what they need to for the motion?

It's edited in that they're only using pages relevant to their motion, but the content of the pages is not edited.

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're hoping that GW wins not because Chapterhouse have broken a law but because you personally don't like their products?

Oh no, I hope the courts rule in favor of GamesWorkshop because I do feel Chapterhouse has broken the law. I mean on their site they make no attempt to convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but GamesWorkshop products.

I also happen to not like Chapterhouse, because the product I have gotten from them in the past has been sub par at best.

Alfndrate wrote:
... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

My point is, who's putting them up and are they biased to one side or the other? And as you pointed out, what we have here has been edited, can you be absolutely certain that it was the courts that did that editing? Is it possible that whoever put this stuff up might not have done it?

Noir wrote:Wait. so instead of just not buying there stuff, like a normal person would do if they dislike something. You think screw case law, GW should win anyways. Hope you never end up in front of a jury with poeple like you on it.

Wow, mind putting your torch and pitchfork down or should I help you put that noose around my neck?

And nothing personal but I would rather a jury of myself than a jury of you. You and I do not know each other, but you seem to feel the need to jump down my throat and assume you know me and how I think; and while I don't know you any better I most certainly do not want to be judged by others who will make a judgment of me after all of two sentences.

darkreever wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're hoping that GW wins not because Chapterhouse have broken a law but because you personally don't like their products?

Oh no, I hope the courts rule in favor of GamesWorkshop because I do feel Chapterhouse has broken the law. I mean on their site they make no attempt to convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but GamesWorkshop products.

But, as has been pointed out many times in this thread, that isn't against the law.

Just like I can make cases to fit iPhones or ground effect kits to fit a Honda, and I can advertise either as being exactly what they're for.

darkreever wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:
So you're hoping that GW wins not because Chapterhouse have broken a law but because you personally don't like their products?

Oh no, I hope the courts rule in favor of GamesWorkshop because I do feel Chapterhouse has broken the law. I mean on their site they make no attempt to convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but GamesWorkshop products.

I also happen to not like Chapterhouse, because the product I have gotten from them in the past has been sub par at best.

While they may not make any attempt to denote that their product is for things other than GW products, they are in no way attempting to state that these are official GW products, or officially licensed GW products.

Alfndrate wrote:
... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

My point is, who's putting them up and are they biased to one side or the other? And as you pointed out, what we have here has been edited, can you be absolutely certain that it was the courts that did that editing? Is it possible that whoever put this stuff up might not have done it?

It was pointed out a few posts above yours that I was incorrect, I recognize my failing, and will be sure to correct it.

darkreever wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:
... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

My point is, who's putting them up and are they biased to one side or the other? And as you pointed out, what we have here has been edited, can you be absolutely certain that it was the courts that did that editing? Is it possible that whoever put this stuff up might not have done it?

the textual excerpts posted are copy-pasted from the official pdf court transcripts released by the court.

 judgedoug wrote:

darkreever wrote:

Alfndrate wrote:
... We are the public, if these are the pieces of the transcript that were filed, that's all we're going to get... There's not conspiracy to make GW out to be the bad guy by anyone on these boards. What we were presented with was edited down by the courts most likely.

My point is, who's putting them up and are they biased to one side or the other? And as you pointed out, what we have here has been edited, can you be absolutely certain that it was the courts that did that editing? Is it possible that whoever put this stuff up might not have done it?

the textual excerpts posted are copy-pasted from the official pdf court transcripts released by the court.

Like judgedoug said - these are pdfs filed with the court via the pacer system. I am paying the fee to download them and then uploading them here and at the recap site:

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

Czakk, you are an awesome human being for making that financial contribution out of the goodness of your heart to help all of us in the community stay educated on this proceeding.

Here are some kudos; I'm sorry their not actually worth anything.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Alfndrate wrote:
What album cover is that? Is it by a decent band

I've been trying to remember what the band was to post it here. You used to see it posted every now and then when someone would start on how 'original' GW is...

I thought it was a book cover, not an album.

Eric

Is this it?

Spoiler:

Cover art made for an Atari game called Brataccas.

Don't know. That pic is blocked from me at work. : (

Eric

czakk wrote:

Like judgedoug said - these are pdfs filed with the court via the pacer system. I am paying the fee to download them and then uploading them here and at the recap site:

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

Indeed as Saldiven said, thank you for the contribution in making sure these are available to all of us.

Though everyone might want to keep in mind that this thread is four to five thousand posts long; thats not exactly an easy or short slog through. Perhaps it might be a good idea for someone with the ability to do so to update the first post? That way anyone coming in can look at that and then go to the later pages and be relatively caught up. That way some of the older and more veteran members don't come down on newer ones like a hammer.

Rehosted it. My personal site so it's unlikely to be blocked.

darkreever wrote:

Oh no, I hope the courts rule in favor of GamesWorkshop because I do feel Chapterhouse has broken the law. I mean on their site they make no attempt to convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but GamesWorkshop products.

I also happen to not like Chapterhouse, because the product I have gotten from them in the past has been sub par at best.

It seems legal (notwithstanding the result of this case) what they are doing. Boring, (not legally) derivative,seriously lacking imagination and a spark of creativity and riding the coat tails of a more successful, more imaginative and better funded company, but legal.

darkreever wrote:
Though everyone might want to keep in mind that this thread is four to five thousand posts long; thats not exactly an easy or short slog through. Perhaps it might be a good idea for someone with the ability to do so to update the first post? That way anyone coming in can look at that and then go to the later pages and be relatively caught up. That way some of the older and more veteran members don't come down on newer ones like a hammer.

Sorry, but not going to happen. The amount of information in the thread is very large; trying to create some sort of synopsis for new arrivals to the thread is more work than I care to do.

Bottom line, if you're really interested in the topic, you'll need to read the thread. Otherwise, you can wait for the verdict, which should be along soon enough.

darkreever wrote:
My point is, who's putting them up and are they biased to one side or the other? And as you pointed out, what we have here has been edited, can you be absolutely certain that it was the courts that did that editing? Is it possible that whoever put this stuff up might not have done it?

You have the same access to the materials as anyone who is posting excerpts from the filings. Rather than casting doubt on those who are posting excerpts, why not go read the material yourself? It was linked in the last page or two.

darkreever wrote:

Oh no, I hope the courts rule in favor of GamesWorkshop because I do feel Chapterhouse has broken the law. I mean on their site they make no attempt to convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but GamesWorkshop products.

Then obviously you do not understand the law. There is no legal requirement for CHS to "convince people that their bits and products are meant for anything but Games Workshop products". None. None whatsoever....

CHS does the exact opposite of your requirement by saying that their parts ARE designed to fit GW models which, again, is perfectly legal. Also perfectly legal is making pieces to fit products made by other companies as evidenced by aftermarket car parts, phone cases and millions of other common consumer items.

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

Personally I'm hoping for a win for GamesWorkshop. Never really been satisfied with Chapterhouse's stuff; at times the stuff I got from them felt more like something I was able to do, and thats the bottom level of amateur.

Hmmm, recent registration, low post count limited to one thread, minority viewpoint that runs contrary to what the facts suggest to be the case, casts aspersions on others motives...

If it looks like a sockpuppet....

Or is this Mandlebonder?

I would disagree with both your desired outcome and the reasons why. I have two SR extension kits, 3 or 4 magnetised turrets (for SR or RB) one of their LR extra armour kits, several of the combo weapons and a handful of other bits, and can't fault any of it. Not to mention that Nick is a great chap who dealt very efficiently with issues arising from transatlantic postage.

Aside from all that, going after a company that requires the consumer to purchase your own product before what they produce is of any relevance is just lunacy. I'm just glad this is one of those cases where it looks like the letter of the law could well result in a logical and fair outcome in the main. Jury brainfart not withstanding.

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

The bits we have access to are part of CHS' request for Directed Verdict and were likely edited down by them. So naturally it's all the stuff that highlights the wost of what GW said.

czakk wrote:
I also wonder if they dug a little bit more into this:

Now, Ms. Stevenson, as you recall, you testified that
this chart was put together at your direction by Games
Workshop's hobby team, and they painted and posed the Games
Workshop figures on the right column to look like the colors
and poses of the Chapterhouse products, is that right?
A Almost. The hobby team didn't put the chart together, but
they did build and paint the model.
Q And you said that you found this confusing when you see
them side by side like this?
A I find it compelling.
Q You said you found it confusing, correct?

I don't have any big legal insight into it, but telling the jury that you posed and painted your product to look similar to the product you think is infringing has got to have them scratching their heads a bit.

I do not understand how deliberately attempting to confuse the jury by creating, for litigation, products that do not exist and which are specifically designed to COPY the opposing party's own artwork can be acceptable as evidence of trademark confusion.

'See, well, in theory, our products COULD look like this. And, well, if someone ELSE made these, just like this, and photographed them JUST LIKE THIS, and then RE-SOLD them, then someone MIGHT possibly be confused into thinking that CHS is endorsed or licensed by GW.'

How in the was that allowed into evidence?!? Appellate point number 56.

See, even if the JURY is confused by the images, that is NO PROOF AT ALL of likelihood of confusion, because the jurors, who know nothing about Games Workshop, are not the relevant market. If they were, GW would have no case at all.

Edit: In fact, if anything, it should be more relevant as evidence of GW infringing on CHS's trademarks, as GW copied artwork from the CHS website, and publicized those images in a public trial. But then again, Stevenson does say that due to the lawsuit, confusion between the two companies is not likely...wtf GW?

So are GW transcripts for Directed verdic up? And are they just as" twisted" as the Chs ones? Of course they would be as that's the whole point of them pick the bits that help you take them out of context and show the other in a bad light, that's lawyers for you.

ClockworkZion wrote:

darkreever wrote:
So these tidbits we have seen so far, has the rest been made public or is this all just cherry picked to make things look better/worse than they may actually be?

The bits we have access to are part of CHS' request for Directed Verdict and were likely edited down by them. So naturally it's all the stuff that highlights the wost of what GW said.

Not necessarily the worst, but just used to re-quote testimony to another witness or for the jury.

Skullhammer wrote:
So are GW transcripts for Directed verdic up? And are they just as" twisted" as the Chs ones? Of course they would be as that's the whole point of them pick the bits that help you take them out of context and show the other in a bad light, that's lawyers for you.

GWs motion wasn't accompanied by transcripts unfortunately.

Skullhammer wrote:
So are GW transcripts for Directed verdic up? And are they just as" twisted" as the Chs ones? Of course they would be as that's the whole point of them pick the bits that help you take them out of context and show the other in a bad light, that's lawyers for you.

GW's JMOL is what it is. There are no attached transcripts, and paltry few transcript quotes in the motion.

weeble1000 wrote:

Skullhammer wrote:
So are GW transcripts for Directed verdic up? And are they just as" twisted" as the Chs ones? Of course they would be as that's the whole point of them pick the bits that help you take them out of context and show the other in a bad light, that's lawyers for you.

GW's JMOL is what it is. There are no attached transcripts, and paltry few transcript quotes in the motion.

So, is it fair to assume that this is a knee jerk reaction to CHS's JMOL, or is it common to submit them unsupported?

azreal13 wrote:
Hmmm, recent registration,

Well if you checked out my intro thread, I did say I had come here recently to get a feel for another place rather than just the one I currently inhabit.

azreal13 wrote:
low post count limited to one thread,

Actually its three, my intro thread, an army list I put up where other members of Dakka have been of some great help, and this one here where some of the semi older members have jumped down my throat for not supporting Chapterhouse. Now I know I'm new, but having to support them, or at least be anti GamesWorkshop, isn't part of the rules is it?

azreal13 wrote:
minority viewpoint that runs contrary to what the facts suggest to be the case,

Happens, we don't all agree on everything.

azreal13 wrote:
casts aspersions on others motives...

Well considering some of the semi older members, though only in this thread mind you, have assumed to know me, my intentions, and come close to putting words in my mouth, should I be thanking them?

azreal13 wrote:
If it looks like a sockpuppet....

Or is this Mandlebonder?

Seriously, your insinuating I am trolling; how am I supposed to take that? Honestly, take a step back and look at it: older members being dickish to a newer one because they have differing opinions on the outcome of Chapterhouse vs GamesWorkshop?

ClockworkZion wrote:
The bits we have access to are part of CHS' request for Directed Verdict and were likely edited down by them. So naturally it's all the stuff that highlights the wost of what GW said.

See this is what I was wondering, if Chapterhouse had a hand in getting this information made public then there is a bias to make GamesWokshop appear to be or be doing worst than they may very well be. I'd be asking the exact same thing if it appeared to be skewed in favor of GamesWorkshop.