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.

czakk wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
Ah Judge Gilbert, the Pandora of this case;

"Cassandra" I think. Able to predict the future but doomed to have no one listen.

You're right...darn what was I thinking?



It would be nice to see the jury instructions.

weeble1000 wrote:

If you could appeal until you won everything, why the hell should you not appeal? I guess I am completely failing to follow your logic on this. I can see saying that in a cost/benefit analysis, an appeal might cost X , have Y chance of succeeding, and only get you Z if you did succeed. I would get that. But you seem to be arguing that even with the ability to "win everything," it is better to just be a man and accept that you came out okay in the first place. That just doesn't compute with me.

Not that I am saying anything about either party's chances on appeal, mind, or even desire/ability to appeal. But as a general matter, if your cost to appeal is low, your risk of losing what you have already won is low, your potential benefit from succeeding is significant, and you are already opposing another party's appeal anyway, you might as well appeal almost regardless of your chances of success. And if you predict good chances of success, why in the world would you not?

You seem to be saying that CHS should not appeal because it just wouldn't be gentlemanly. You seem to be saying that you should take your licks and move on with your life. I think that is a fine enough sentiment, but the reason I used a gaming analogy in the first place was because appeals are just part of the process, like getting a rules call from a TO. This is not a friendly game. The parties are not going to be laughing and drinking beers after.

If it was friendly, it would have settled out a long, long, long time ago. Seriously, go have a look at what Judge Gilbert said back in September of 2011.

You seem to have a relatively skewed view of what "low cost" is. Lawyers are never "low cost". Just from lawsuits friends and family had to deal with, if both sides are appealing different parts of a ruling, the same judge hears both appeals. If GW is having to go before the judge to defend, they may as well look into the rulings against them and look for "mistakes". Resources are being expended already and a judge is hearing the issue. Of course if GW was appealing, I would expect CHS do to the same back. I have no delusion that this friendly anymore and believe the only reason the law firm is continuing to support this is because they see it as a good way to polish their name. If this wasn't pro-bono work, CHS wouldn't be continuing this fight.

silent25 wrote:

You seem to have a relatively skewed view of what "low cost" is. Lawyers are never "low cost". Just from lawsuits friends and family had to deal with, if both sides are appealing different parts of a ruling, the same judge hears both appeals. If GW is having to go before the judge to defend, they may as well look into the rulings against them and look for "mistakes". Resources are being expended already and a judge is hearing the issue. Of course if GW was appealing, I would expect CHS do to the same back. I have no delusion that this friendly anymore and believe the only reason the law firm is continuing to support this is because they see it as a good way to polish their name. If this wasn't pro-bono work, CHS wouldn't be continuing this fight.

Low cost is relative and is compared to a 2+ year suit. Much cheaper for CHS though...

I would think the CHS would not be appealing unless their lawyers thought it was a good idea. If Winston and Strawn thinks there is something to be gained (without too much downside) by appealing, odds seem pretty good that it will be worthwhile.

T

timd wrote:


Low cost is relative and is compared to a 2+ year suit. Much cheaper for CHS though...

I would think the CHS would not be appealing unless their lawyers thought it was a good idea. If Winston and Strawn thinks there is something to be gained (without too much downside) by appealing, odds seem pretty good that it will be worthwhile.

T

One possible additional motivation for W&S - I believe that in copyright cases attorney's fees can be awarded to the prevailing party (the normal 'american rule' is displaced). We've already seen that costs / who is the prevailing party may be a bit contentious. Now costs vary down there, but up here, succeeding on appeal can entitle you to costs for the action in the court below. If W&S wants to get some of their pro bono time paid for by GW, this would give them another shot.

Of course the decision is up to the client, but this could be a factor in W&S being willing to do the appeal on the client's behalf.

 Maddermax wrote:

 skyth wrote:
What I am amazed is that they found a copyright infringment on the super heavy walker...GW doesn't make one of those and there isn't even a concept of one of those from GW...(I'm assuming that we're talking about the Tau one here).

Eh? The super heavy walker is listed under things which did not infringe, and I cant see any other reference to it. Am I missing something?

Oops...my bad...I read the listing wrong. Sorry.

czakk wrote:

timd wrote:


Low cost is relative and is compared to a 2+ year suit. Much cheaper for CHS though...

I would think the CHS would not be appealing unless their lawyers thought it was a good idea. If Winston and Strawn thinks there is something to be gained (without too much downside) by appealing, odds seem pretty good that it will be worthwhile.

T

One possible additional motivation for W&S - I believe that in copyright cases attorney's fees can be awarded to the prevailing party (the normal 'american rule' is displaced). We've already seen that costs / who is the prevailing party may be a bit contentious. Now costs vary down there, but up here, succeeding on appeal can entitle you to costs for the action in the court below. If W&S wants to get some of their pro bono time paid for by GW, this would give them another shot.

Of course the decision is up to the client, but this could be a factor in W&S being willing to do the appeal on the client's behalf.

If that is the case, it definitely answers my original question. Thanks czakk!

*edit* And would be interesting to see how much W&S would claim to have spent on the case.

I would imagine that the "free" lawyers for CHS would not agree to represent this case in an appeal unless they thought that it could make them look even better than already winning the majority of the contested cases.

silent25 wrote:
I have no delusion that this friendly anymore and believe the only reason the law firm is continuing to support this is because they see it as a good way to polish their name. If this wasn't pro-bono work, CHS wouldn't be continuing this fight.

The delusion was thinking that it ever WAS friendly. GW has not been friendly to the "aftermarket" market in any way, shape or form for many MANY years. That is not just businesses like CHS, but online stores, mom & pop operations and bits sellers alike.

If this was not pro-bono work, GW would have succeeded in shuttering a small business on ground that have been clearly shown to be more incorrect than correct. I honestly don't care -for the most part- what their reason is for representing CHS. They are stepping in to support someone unfairly bullied by GW, and for that they get a big fat KUDOS from me.


Eric

 Sinful Hero wrote:

12thRonin wrote:


For the original damages that GW requested, yeah, it is. $25k may be a short term pain, but it's not back breakingly bad.

According to the documents, GW requested $25,000. The other numbers were CH's gross earnings over that period- 25k was their profit, and what GW requested.

Presumably the $25k is CHS profits for all items, and not for the ones they were found to be infringing on? In which case, should they be paying damages on what wasn't found to infringe and the damages should actually be about $8.3k (profits times the 1/3rd of claims they lost on)?

 d-usa wrote:
I would imagine that the "free" lawyers for CHS would not agree to represent this case in an appeal unless they thought that it could make them look even better than already winning the majority of the contested cases.

Even if for whatever reason they couldn't, I know for a fact there are several other firms that have said they would represent CHS pro-bono on appeal.

GW's legal position in court has been such an aberration that the legal community sees a GW victory as one where many industries lose and makes a mess of the consistency of the law by potentially establishing a very skewed precedent. This is why W&S represented CHS pro-bono and why many others are willing to as well.

That's interesting, Aka Mythos.

I hadn't realized that the legal community was taking interest in the plight of small companies being pushed around by Games Workshop.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I hadn't realized that the legal community was taking interest in the plight of small companies being pushed around by Games Workshop.

I don't think that's the reason. It's not altruistic--or at least not entirely so. There is a real concern for professionals working under an established 'status quo' if something dramatic comes along and shakes up that status quo in a way that could result in greater expense for the industry.

I believe that's what this GW case represents, if GW had entirely gotten their way--suddenly much larger and more meaningful companies can just make whacky claims with at least some legal precedent.

Is the judge´s decision already in?.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Is the judge´s decision already in?.

[sing-song]
Someone hasn't been keeping up with the thread....
[/sing-song]

: )

Nope. Still waiting.


Eric

xxvaderxx wrote:
Is the judge´s decision already in?.

No decision yet, but we do have a complete list of who won on each count posted above.

T

xxvaderxx wrote:
Is the judge´s decision already in?.

Proposed versions from both parties are in. Judge will pick one or edit / write his own.

The clerk filed the following judgment. For some reason it is in multiple files.

So GW now won the copyright on Roman numbers??? I hope for an appeal!

czakk wrote:
The clerk filed the following judgment. For some reason it is in multiple files.

Eagerly awaiting your summary, czakk

Isn't that just the official jury verdict? From weeks ago?

 RiTides wrote:

czakk wrote:
The clerk filed the following judgment. For some reason it is in multiple files.

Eagerly awaiting your summary, czakk

Oh, RiTides...

 judgedoug wrote:
Isn't that just the official jury verdict? From weeks ago?

Correct. Those are all the claims being noted as having Jury Verdicts, but not Court Decisions.

 sourclams wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
I hadn't realized that the legal community was taking interest in the plight of small companies being pushed around by Games Workshop.

I don't think that's the reason. It's not altruistic--or at least not entirely so. There is a real concern for professionals working under an established 'status quo' if something dramatic comes along and shakes up that status quo in a way that could result in greater expense for the industry.

I believe that's what this GW case represents, if GW had entirely gotten their way--suddenly much larger and more meaningful companies can just make whacky claims with at least some legal precedent.

Exactly, these firms represent a number of companies in a variety of industries and by protecting CHS they protect the interpretation of law under which these companies operate.

W&S took the lead in this case but CHS was represented by a second firm as part of its defense team.

This whole thing has gotten stupid.

Seriously, CHS deserve to be shot down for being stupid. Clearly infringing the IP using certain lines and not even having the where-with-all to leave enough doubt to be viable.

Look at others like Anvil Industries, they have been extremely careful not to leave themselves open because they know GW will be on them like "a pack of Zombies after the last human being on earth. "

Even CHS website states...

"ChapterHouse Studios specializes in the creation of high end resin and metal miniature kits and bits applicable for use with a variety of Warhammer and Warhammer 40k models and the games.Our mission is to help address public demand for unavailable parts and iconography with the highest standards possible. "

Iconography is the dodgy bit (equally referencing the IP you are ripping is a bad start too), you've got to be so careful. This whole thing could have been avoided if they had been a bit more clever. Granted GW are hammering them, but so would I if I owned something and someone was making money off my own coat-tails. I think there is some Anti-GW Jingo-ism meets pseudo understanding of Economics and IP law here, with a big dose of "Morale Soap-boxing".

Like them or Hate them GW does own alot of IP, and there an awful lot of organisations that own things like the Song "Happy Birthday" and have to pay royalties etc and cannot reproduce without permission.

Look at Apples Claims on Samsung...Which they won.



So IP law and all it's associated elements are complex as hell...Best solution, don't make your product similar to anything else and make sure your register it, for a TM, Patent or as Intellectual property.

 mwnciboo wrote:
This whole thing has gotten stupid.

Seriously, CHS deserve to be shot down for being stupid. Clearly infringing the IP using certain lines and not even having the where-with-all to leave enough doubt to be viable.

Look at others like Anvil Industries, they have been extremely careful not to leave themselves open because they know GW will be on them like "a pack of Zombies after the last human being on earth. "

Even CHS website states...

"Our mission is to help address public demand for unavailable parts and iconography with the highest standards possible. "

Iconography is the dodgy bit, you've got to be so careful. This whole thing could have been avoided if they had been a bit more clever. Granted GW are hammering them, but so would I if I owned something and someone was making money of my own coat-tails. I think there is some Anti-GW Jingo-ism meets pseudo understanding of Economics and IP law here, with a big dose of "Morale Soap-boxing".

Like them or Hate them GW does own alot of IP, and there an awful lot of organisations that own things like the Song "Happy Birthday" and have to pay royalties etc and cannot reproduce without permission.

Your rambling shows a complete misunderstanding of the case and is factually inaccurate. Please go back and read the thread.

Balls...If I owned GW - I would want CHS shut down.

It's blatant and flagrant. It even references GW's own IP in it's mission statement on it's website.

A bit like signature under your post which shows you are biased before you've even started.

The decisions in this case run counter to a lot of what you think happened, or should have happened though...

You cannot claim to be filling in gaps in a Market with others IP.

I could claim the same, that Apple don't make a Wrist-watch so I will make one called the iWatch, design it to be compatible, white rounded corners etc.

Copy elements of design of the original iPod, then make a mission statement that says "I'm here to fill the gaps in Apple's Product Range" and then act surprised when Apple jumps on me?

Look at Flames of War, there is no IP claim on WW2, so there are lots of Companies producing the exact same Tanks in various or the same scales.

Then look at GW's Universe, something they created from nothing and own almost entirely, now other Companies cannot directly reference their material without permisson. Fantasy Flight Games and others have all worked with GW, companies like Codex Pictures or THQ, to produce in Universe IP items all above board and legally.

CHS might win, they might not, but it's very difficult to see how they will not end up in a protracted Legal War over the next 10 years if they continue to try to release things that get GW's attention.

Have you even read the results of this case or are you... up to something else here?

GW's universe is 'created from nothing'? It's nothing but a collection of concepts and SF/Fantasy tropes mined from decades of published and filmed works.