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.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

czakk wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
If memory serves, and it may not, the doom seer came out after the CD letter.

Which C&D letter? I don't think we've seen any filed anywhere.

I'm not sure if it was ever posted, but it was a few years ago. You'd have to dig through the thread to find it- or it may even be in another . Note- pretty sure he's talking about the original C&D letter that started a lot of this.

I was

 AndrewC wrote:


How do you figure that?

If a product is illegal in a country, then it is illegal in a country regardless of where it is made. And if they are selling product to an american market then they are operating in the US.

For example, and a poor one I admit, it's legal to purchase fake rolexes in China, but illegal to import them into the UK.

And from earlier comments (someone mentioned seeing them on racks) Scibor already has pre-packed figures imported to the US for retail sale.

The problem is that the manufacture of such minis is only a criminal case if the minis are made in the US (or passed off as 'Genuine'),otherwise it's a civil one. Despite the Alien Tort Statute of 1789, the US Supreme Court, in a 9-0 ruling in April, ruled that Foreign Nationals could not bring suit against each other in US courts for events that took place outside the US.

Further the 'Mega Conspiracy' case is busy making a shambles of the idea that US law is the ruling law of the Internet...

Which is all very true, but ask yourself this, since the majority if customers are law abiding citizens of the USA, and the company is a law abiding company, will they deliberately set out to break US law?

So while the results of this case is not legally binding on all the affected companies, they will be bound by their personal ethics into not setting out to break US laws.

So, my comments are not about criminal or civil cases, but the cut off of the availability of the American markets to those companies.

Do I make better sense now, because I wasn't very clear earlier.

Cheers

Andrew

 AustonT wrote:

czakk wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
If memory serves, and it may not, the doom seer came out after the CD letter.

Which C&D letter? I don't think we've seen any filed anywhere.

How EXACTLY did you think this lawsuit started?

Well normally a lawsuit gets started by filing a 'complaint' or other originating process with a court. A C&D is just a nastygram.

I was wondering if any C&Ds got filed waaay back in the day when GW was seeking treble damages (as part of an effort to show wilfulness - eg defendant was put on notice, and continued to infringe).

Okay, but you are ignoring the difference between legislation and tort. The issue here is not about rape, a murder or an arson spree. These kinds of crimes are federally legislated. Torts have no sway about barring someone's business. Us courts are encouraged to look at other nations for case law where none exists, but are not required to do so. Not everything in a court is a criminal action. Torts, like this case, is the likeliest outcome, with criminal action being taken only possibly if an outright knockoff is sold, and not just the brand names used.

The fact is there is no cutoff. You look at the case law, the trade marks etc. and then sell based on that. Either. You have space kniggitz of the far grim dark future, or spice muhreenz, or space marines. Two will get you dirty looks, and the latter will. Ring law suit against you [I HATE THIS DAMN IPAD! IT'S A PIECE OF TRASH, CAN'T UNDERLINE ANYTHING] then if, and only if, you have a business address in the states can you have legal action brought against you in the states under tort law. The consumer has not violated laws, and since companies did not violate criminal laws, the Feds don't care. The only thing the companies violated are rights to trademarks... Otherwise, company a can float and sputter, and do nothing. It can do the American thing of suing everyone including known customers to demand some kind of restitution for buying knockoffs....but that won't work. And if company b has no employees or registered addresses in the US, then company a can have impotent rage over whats happening.

Honestly I'm not sure what you are getting at, because your questions all terminate in the example of either this case or nothing happens, or a smart victim documents everything...

Now I'm not sure what I'm getting at.

Okay Poda, ask your self this question, if this case has said that parts are okay, and full figure replacements are not, would you buy a full replacement figure from Europe?

Cheers

Andrew

 AndrewC wrote:
Now I'm not sure what I'm getting at.

Okay Poda, ask your self this question, if this case has said that parts are okay, and full figure replacements are not, would you buy a full replacement figure from Europe?

Cheers

Andrew

Yes, and it would be for all practical purposes legal to do so. The issue here is copyrights and trademarks as interpreted by the US. This only effects US companies and manufacturers, SCOTUS just shot down GW suing Scibor in US courts for what Scibor does in (IIRC) France. Scibor could choose nto ot sell directly to the US, but resellers would make a mint in the process, as there's nothing to legally stop them from doing so as long as the minis in question are not direct knock offs. As to the legality of their import, IIRC there's no law on the books that says they cannot be imported into the US.

Unless you're asking if it's moral to do so, to which I say 'Sure'.

 AndrewC wrote:
Now I'm not sure what I'm getting at.

Okay Poda, ask your self this question, if this case has said that parts are okay, and full figure replacements are not, would you buy a full replacement figure from Europe?

Cheers

Andrew

after assessing the models, and having determined that they are more cost-effective for me, or i find them to be better looking, or for the simple fact of snubbing GW and giving someone else my money? As a consumer I have the right to choose who I buy from, and if I happen to think GW does bad business or their product is not up to par, then it's ridiculous to blame me for not buying their over-priced re-branded crap or what I have consistently maintained are sub-par models. If people DO want to hound me for the "gw has the best quality models" I will cough the word "Tamiya" and "dragon models" into my hands. I'll buy the odd model from GW since i still have outstanding projects... but...by and large? most of my recent purchases have been 3rd party bits or 3rd party models. GW does not produce 1000 sons terminators. So I'm not going to give them upwards of $200 just to get the parts required to convert a squad of 9 terminators.

as to the morality, does it really matter? If we want to play the morality trump card, then one has to ask why bother buying anything from GW at all.

Okay, then in that case I'm overthinking things, and seeing shadows where there are none, please feel free to ignore my ramblings.

Cheers

Andrew

czakk wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

czakk wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
If memory serves, and it may not, the doom seer came out after the CD letter.

Which C&D letter? I don't think we've seen any filed anywhere.

How EXACTLY did you think this lawsuit started?

Well normally a lawsuit gets started by filing a 'complaint' or other originating process with a court. A C&D is just a nastygram.

I was wondering if any C&Ds got filed waaay back in the day when GW was seeking treble damages (as part of an effort to show wilfulness - eg defendant was put on notice, and continued to infringe).

I don't know what treble damage is (sarcasm free statement) but yes it was in the string of CDs GW sent out to badger 3rd party companies into folding. Whole you may not NEED a CD to file a case; let's be real: GW sends them out like party favors.

I seem to recall shortly after hearing GW threatened CHS they produced the Doomseer. Like a hearty "feth you" bit I could be wrong.

ENOUGH. This is NOT the thread to discuss the implications of the ruling, or speculations about the implications of the eventual ruling..

Can GW request an injuction on every disputed point they lost pending the appeal?

And second question if the appeal is successful for CH could they claim damages against GW or that would be a different suit? (Or the other way around)

M.

 Miguelsan wrote:
Can GW request an injuction on every disputed point they lost pending the appeal?

And second question if the appeal is successful for CH could they claim damages against GW or that would be a different suit? (Or the other way around)

M.

uhhhhh

nnnnnnot sure? I think we are still waiting for the documents to be available on pacer?
As i understand it, CHS's damages were not part of the action, so, as I understand it a Judge might throw it in, because some are crazy like that, but no. The appeal only deals with points of law that either party feels were improperly adhered to.

Last few entries in PACER for those who are curious:

06/14/2013 396 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Nunc pro tunc 6/14/2013: Jury deliberations concluded. Verdict returned in open court. A judgment will not be entered at this time pending further discussions regarding the form of the judgment given the complexity of the verdict form. The deadline for filing motions pursuant to Rules 50 and 59 relating to the jury's verdict is 7/15/2013. A status hearing is set for 6/20/2013 at 9:30 a.m. to address that point as well as what further proceedings will be required regarding plaintiff's request for an injunction. (mk) Modified on 6/19/2013 (or, ). (Entered: 06/19/2013)
06/14/2013 399 JURY Verdict entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. (Mailed Notice) (RESTRICTED) (td, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)
06/19/2013 397 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Status hearing set for 6/20/2013 at 9:30 AM. (mk) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
06/20/2013 398 MINUTE entry before Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly:Status hearing held and continued to 7/15/2013 at 9:30 a.m. Joint Status Report regarding Injunctive Relief is to be filed by 6/26/2013. Draft judgment to be submitted by 6/26/13. Hearing regarding the judgment set for 6/27/2013 at 09:30 AM. (or, ) (Entered: 06/21/2013)

So the final judgement should be out by the end of the week.

Because this thread is 176 pages and I unfortunately don't have the time to peruse it all, there was mention of this case revealing Forgeworlds relationship with the larger GW entity, any idea in what ways?

ClockworkZion wrote:
Last few entries in PACER for those who are curious:

06/14/2013 399 JURY Verdict entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. (Mailed Notice) (RESTRICTED) (td, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

This makes it look like GW won

They won only 1/3 of their disputes that went before the jury. If GW won only a single dispute the phrasing would be the same. It'd also be phrased that way, if GW won on any dispute but awarded nothing.

 Aerethan wrote:
So the final judgement should be out by the end of the week.

I doubt it. Sometimes, the judge asks the prevailing party (or occasionally both parties) to submit a written judgment order, which the other party/judge amend until the judge is happy with it. I suspect that's what the "draft" judgment order is in this case.

 Janthkin wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So the final judgement should be out by the end of the week.

I doubt it. Sometimes, the judge asks the prevailing party (or occasionally both parties) to submit a written judgment order, which the other party/judge amend until the judge is happy with it. I suspect that's what the "draft" judgment order is in this case.

I see. So that draft is due 6/27/13, then it's a haggle fest until a resolution at a date set by the court I assume?

Never knew that cases aren't actually over when a verdict is declared(other than the appeals process). How drawn out. Not in ANY way a waste of time, money, energy on everyone's part, including taxpayers.

I suppose the silver lining is that while this case is 2.5 years old, it only actually took up 2 weeks of full court time.

That was a pretty quick appeals process, or did I miss the part where a party waived their right to appeal?

somewheresomehow wrote:
That was a pretty quick appeals process, or did I miss the part where a party waived their right to appeal?

I'm pretty sure they need the final judgement from the original trial before launching an appeal, dude.

 Dysartes wrote:

somewheresomehow wrote:
That was a pretty quick appeals process, or did I miss the part where a party waived their right to appeal?

I'm pretty sure they need the final judgement from the original trial before launching an appeal, dude.

True, but with the way people are reacting, you would think the appeal process was over, and we won't have another year or more of this whole situation continuing.

 Aerethan wrote:

 Janthkin wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
So the final judgement should be out by the end of the week.

I doubt it. Sometimes, the judge asks the prevailing party (or occasionally both parties) to submit a written judgment order, which the other party/judge amend until the judge is happy with it. I suspect that's what the "draft" judgment order is in this case.

I see. So that draft is due 6/27/13, then it's a haggle fest until a resolution at a date set by the court I assume?

Never knew that cases aren't actually over when a verdict is declared(other than the appeals process). How drawn out. Not in ANY way a waste of time, money, energy on everyone's part, including taxpayers.

I suppose the silver lining is that while this case is 2.5 years old, it only actually took up 2 weeks of full court time.

Frankly, given the number of individual claims involved, it's actually moved along pretty quickly.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Because this thread is 176 pages and I unfortunately don't have the time to peruse it all, there was mention of this case revealing Forgeworlds relationship with the larger GW entity, any idea in what ways?

That's a very silly question. GW owns FW. FW is just a brand that has it's own dev team. Why do you need court documents to explain this?

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Because this thread is 176 pages and I unfortunately don't have the time to peruse it all, there was mention of this case revealing Forgeworlds relationship with the larger GW entity, any idea in what ways?

That's a very silly question. GW owns FW. FW is just a brand that has it's own dev team. Why do you need court documents to explain this?

There was a mention in the "Do we need FW in tournament play?" thread that there was something revealed about GW's distance to FW. Having been following this thread closely, I saw no mention of such. It's off-topic anyway.

 Dynamix wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Last few entries in PACER for those who are curious:

06/14/2013 399 JURY Verdict entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. (Mailed Notice) (RESTRICTED) (td, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

This makes it look like GW won

I think we should all agree, the supporters of either party can claim the verdict went their way. There's no reason to suspect that either party won't declare it as a victory.

GW will certainly claim that they won the case, using the words above, and the fact there was a setllement in their favor.

And Chapterhouse can justifiably claim a David vs Goliath victory, even though David took a few punches and Goliath is still standing.

 Dynamix wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:
Last few entries in PACER for those who are curious:

06/14/2013 399 JURY Verdict entered in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant. (Mailed Notice) (RESTRICTED) (td, ) (Entered: 06/24/2013)

This makes it look like GW won

Well, you can win a case and still not really win a case.

For example, just last week there was a student who "won" a First Amendment violation suit against his teacher and school system because the teacher kicked the student out of the class during a discussion about socio-politics where the student put forward a differing view than that of the teacher.

The court awarded the student the "victory" in the suit, but then only awarded $1.00 in damages.

So, "winning" a suit doesn't mean the winner actually got what they wanted.

Hmm.. I hope this isn't going to turn into a 'they won!'* like the Forces of Order in the Eye of Terror campaign back in the early 2000's, in the way that any impartial observer can view as simply not being the case

* Although in that case 'they drew!'

 Pacific wrote:
Hmm.. I hope this isn't going to turn into a 'they won!'* like the Forces of Order in the Eye of Terror campaign back in the early 2000's, in the way that any impartial observer can view as simply not being the case

* Although in that case 'they drew!'

How about you just stick to the facts:

"Together with the summary judgment wins, the jury’s verdict confirmed Chapterhouse can continue to make and sell 111 products that Games Workshop hoped to block using copyright laws, and can continue to use 104 words and phrases that Games Workshop said were trademarked."

I mean, that looks to me like Chapterhouse Studios quite literally won on 111 copyright claims and 104 trademark claims. That of course does not include the Court finding that none of GW's marks are famous.

For its part, GW won something like 50 copyright claims and 50 trademark claims, according to the BOLS post.

Now, you could say that GW "won" because it won something, but GW's goal was not to win something. GW's goal was to obliterate Chapterhouse Studios.

These comments by Magistrate Judge Gilbert, waaaay back on September 1st, 2011 are very, very enlightening:

You can find it on page 107 of this document.

THE COURT: And so let's say for the sake of argument
and only for the sake of argument and not as any finding or
anything else that for at least some of your items you're
going to be able to show they're substantially similar and
you're going to be able to put together whatever
circumstantial or even direct evidence in terms of the types
of things you're asking for from the defendant of copying,
okay? And for others it's going to be a little bit dicier.
You're not going to be able to show that they're that similar
and you're not going to be able to -- and maybe the defendant
is going to be able to articulate from whatever diaries he has
or whatever that he came up with the Shakespeare sonnet pretty
much on his own and it's going to be a bit of a reach.
But let say you're going to win on some of this stuff
after you go through all your discovery. What then? If Games
Workshop Limited's goal is to put Chapterhouse Studios out of
business, a death knell, cease and desist, go away, die, and
pay us whatever you can of our attorneys' fees, then you're
right, there is no basis to sit down and settle this case.
However, if you would like to work out some agreement
with Chapterhouse Studios, and I haven't yet heard whether
Chapterhouse is willing to do that, short of "We'll go away
roll up and die," but that allows both of you to go on and
attempt to continue to operate in the areas, the space that
you're operating in in some way without one or the other
having to give up, in the world I live that's called a
settlement, right?

And further down on page 115

- and I'll add in also I would bet with 97 or however
many works we are talking about here that defendant is going
to win some too.
So defendant is going to get some ruling someplace from
Judge Kennelly if this goes all the way through that you don't
have any protectable interest in certain of your works. You
know, there may be some figures, there may be some other
things if you get into a battle on this, that lo and behold
Chapterhouse, which has a profitable business on this, there
is going to be a ruling on the record public in federal
district court in Chicago that you don't have rights to
certain things that you're now asserting rights in.
So let's assume that all that goes down. But with
respect to the things that you win on, what do you want? Do
you want Chapterhouse to cease and desist production of those
items, period? Would you be satisfied if Chapterhouse owned
by a fan paid you a royalty of some, or your client a royalty
of some amount in order to do that or some other type of
relief that you could negotiate with them now? Or is the only
way [Games Workshop] is satisfied here is it proves its case, it
wins, and it puts Chapterhouse out of business.

And on page 128:

I think it
would be a shame for both sides here, one side is paying their
lawyers, one side is doing it for free, but it seems to me
both sides have risk in the litigation and it can be an
extremely expensive litigation...

I mean, I will tell you I had a trademark case last, a
couple weeks ago, maybe a month ago now, that was very -- it
was also a zero sum game, it was very hotly fought. The
principals came in, the settlement discussion for hours was
very hot, but in sitting with both parties I learned that the
principals really had a lot of animosity against each other
because of some prelitigation telephone calls that were had
and things that were said on those calls.
And one of the principals took it upon himself to say to
the other principal, "I'm sorry. I'm sorry about how I
reacted when we had a phone call. I'm sorry for saying that I
was going to bury you, that I was going to put you out of
business, that this was going to cost you too much and you
could not fight us. And I have respect for your business,
your plan, your model and I would like to try and resolve
this." The case got resolved.

I think it is fair to say that looking at where this case is now, Judge Gilbert would say, "I told you so."

Games Workshop's aim was to put Chapterhouse out of business, period. Games Workshop was not willing to say, 'You are a fan, I respect your business, I'm sorry for being an a-hole, let's find a reasonable way to work this out'.

Now, as a result, well warned by Judge Gilbert, Games Workshop walked right into "a ruling on the record public in federal district court in Chicago that you don't have rights to certain things that you're now asserting rights in."

You can make up your own minds about who won this lawsuit. But never forget that for Games Workshop this was always a "zero sum game" that Games Workshop walked into with eyes wide open.