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.

Follow up on that joint request for an extension:

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly: Telephone status hearing held on 8/27/2013 with attorneys for both sides. Motion for extension of time 417[RECAP] is granted. The deadline for filing attorney's fees petitions is extended to 10/16/2013. Telephone status hearing, to be initiated by the parties, is set for 9/25/2013 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice. (pjg, ) (Entered: 08/27/2013)

Judge Kennelly is giving everyone plenty of time to think about things indeed.

Thanks for keeping us all up to date on the goings on czakk. I expect that if the settlement conference in front of Gilbert goes badly things will heat up again. This little 'cooling off period' seems to have tamped down public interest in the case. It might be that GW could let the whole thing sort of die quietly with a post-verdict settlement.

An appeal from either party is going to cause a bit of a hoopla, that is unless of course Judge Kennelly does something aggressive with the post-trial motions, which would cause plenty of hoopla on its own. Both parties have motions out there that would obliterate the opposing party's victories should they be granted. And, of course, lord only knows what Chapterhouse's motion for fees is like.

Anyone want to take guesses? Closest without going over?

$1.25mil

I'm being generous. I think its MUCH higher.

With how this thread flames up like a bad summer forest fire in the west, I'm not sure a guessing mini game is a great idea given how tightly controlled/moderated/pruned this thread has been.

 warboss wrote:
With how this thread flames up like a bad summer forest fire in the west, I'm not sure a guessing mini game is a great idea given how tightly controlled/moderated/pruned this thread has been.

I have to agree - please keep this on on point please.

Thanks!

Removed. Missed the Mod post.

09/16/2013 431 MINUTE entry before Honorable Jeffrey T. Gilbert: Settlement conference held on 9/16/13. The parties are going to meet to discuss a proposal on the table at the conclusion of the settlement conference. Once that meeting is set, counsel jointly will advise the Court of the date for that meeting and the Court will set a status conference after that meeting to take stock of the situation and discuss next steps as appropriate. Mailed notice (mr, ) (Entered: 09/17/2013)

This is the latest activity on the docket. It seems the court-ordered settlement conference went forward this past Monday, and the entry indicates that there was a proposal on the table when the conference ended.

We are coming up to three years from the start of the case. The mills of God grind slowly, and the mills of the IP judicial system seem to grind even slower. Let's hope they grind finer.

GW's in house is looking for a new position.

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/gillstevenson

Gill Stevenson

14 Year PQE Solicitor with in-house and Private Practice experience currently seeking a new opportunity


-----

Interesting that she lists "Dawn Raid preparation" as one of her skill sets. A Dawn Raid is a surprise antitrust, antifraud or anti-tax evasion investigation. Basically the authorities show up with a warrant (or requirement, or other equivalent) and and grab all your files, computers, documents etc... Usually a bunch of auditors with a police officer or two 'just in case'. They can also start interviewing / interrogating employees and the like.

Perhaps the regulatory environment over in the UK is such that expertise in such matters is a required skill. That kind of jackboot behaviour is less common around here.

Also an interesting tidbit about a product recall that was fought off.

Shows you what GW was worried about.

Not to read too much into this--but wasn't she lead counsel for GW internal on this case?

Kilkrazy wrote:Let's hope they grind finer.

czakk wrote:GW's in house is looking for a new position.

You were saying, Kilkrazy? Never underestimate God. Sometimes he's pretty quick with the good old fashioned Wrath.

czakk wrote:
GW's in house is looking for a new position.

http://uk.linkedin.com/in/gillstevenson

Gill Stevenson

14 Year PQE Solicitor with in-house and Private Practice experience currently seeking a new opportunity


-----

Interesting that she lists "Dawn Raid preparation" as one of her skill sets. A Dawn Raid is a surprise antitrust, antifraud or anti-tax evasion investigation. Basically the authorities show up with a warrant (or requirement, or other equivalent) and and grab all your files, computers, documents etc... Usually a bunch of auditors with a police officer or two 'just in case'. They can also start interviewing / interrogating employees and the like.

Perhaps the regulatory environment over in the UK is such that expertise in such matters is a required skill. That kind of jackboot behaviour is less common around here.

Also an interesting tidbit about a product recall that was fought off.

Shows you what GW was worried about.

You call it jackboot behaviour, we call it enforcing the law on companies otherwise too big for individual victims of their anticompetitive behaviour to take out themselves. Works quite well, really.
And tbh, to actually incur a so-called 'dawn raid' (I'm surprised someone is using that term on their CV, around here that'd be put a bit more formally I'd say) you have to be behaving like a pretty obvious jackass already, in general.

It's not just the UK btw; while dawn raids for tax purposes occur (and to call our revenue services jackbooted thugs is dubious at best; AFAIK they're actually quite a bit more gentle than for example the IRS criminal division, or whatever it's called again, tends to be), most tend to involve anticompetitive behaviour. The biggest fangs in that department tend to be those of the European Commision (collaborating with national agencies, granted) and most (regularly enforced) regulation in those fields is, by now, European as well.

...And yes, in-house council for a big(ish) company better have some skills in anti-competitive behaviour practice - we don't like companies fething up the free market around here so we tend to stomp that kind of behaviour down with a vengeance (and substantial fines). Being able to advise on correct practices to avoid the raids is the least possible requirement; being able to deal with the raids basically means you prefer working for the jackasses of the marketplace


edit:
Oh and before I forget: to this

She could also list "experience with lost cause cases", as long as she doesn't say who lost all her cases
So legal raiders are an official profession now?

The jackboot comment was a bit tongue in cheek.

Typically over here a 'dawn raid' doesn't require judicial authorization (you don't have to go to a judge to justify your actions and get a warrant) and you also don't get certain basic human rights, like the right to remain silent if questioned. They are a fairly extreme measure and in my field you have to know how to deal with say, the tax man knocking on your client's door demanding all their papers (or worse, knocking on your door demanding all of your working papers). All part of protecting what few rights your client has at that point. Usually limited to claiming privilege on certain documents at that point.

All that said, and as you mentioned, you don't highlight being able to deal with raids as a skill unless you work for a certain sort. Your compliance strategy for a client shouldn't involve planning to stymie regulatory investigations (cause generally that's illegal other than fixing document retention policies, and basics like, having an audit team ready to help the investigators get in and out with copies of documents and files so as to have as little disruption to the business as possible).




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Not to read too much into this--but wasn't she lead counsel for GW internal on this case?

She was GWs head legal beagle and I believe the architect of their ip enforcement strategy. We don't know if she was in charge of this particular litigation, or dreamed up its strategy, but she would be the person giving the US attorneys their marching orders.

The fact that she left could be an indication of how successful this chapterhouse lawsuit is viewed internally at GW and the fact that she did not have a lateral position lined up could be an indication that her departure was not planned. Middle age lawyers don't up and quit without a job lined up.

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
Not to read too much into this--but wasn't she lead counsel for GW internal on this case?

Senior Legal Counsel = top in house lawyer, period. CV says she started as the only in house lawyer and grew the staff to four lawyers.

She departed GW in August, so I see a number of possibilities:
• Fired for poor performance in the Chapterthouse suit.
• Fell on own sword after pressure from on high (board) after poor performance in the Chapterthouse suit.
• Saw the light after having her Chapterhouse suit wrecked by GW corporate lies and left voluntarily.

There had to be a scapegoat for the failed suit and she was chosen. The GW board threw her into the deep water where the big (IP) sharks are and she was not up to the task. She was also sabotaged badly by GW corporate.

T

You could take an optimistic view that the GW HQ decided her draconian attempts to control trivial IP issues was stupid and they'd rather someone with a more sensitive attitude was in charge of legal.

Officially, as head of GW legal, she was responsible for the unprofessional handling of this case, either by handling it unprofessionally herself or by being too weak to stop others handling it unprofessionally. And most if not all of GW's idiotic IP strategy happened during her responsibility.

xruslanx wrote:
You could take an optimistic view that the GW HQ decided her draconian attempts to control trivial IP issues was stupid and they'd rather someone with a more sensitive attitude was in charge of legal.

That would be really nice if it were the case - to be honest I've always seen a big divide between the casual GW development staff and employees, and a legal team that is presumably trying to justify its fees.

But then, we've just had an example recently of similar goings on: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/556039.page

xruslanx wrote:
You could take an optimistic view that the GW HQ decided her draconian attempts to control trivial IP issues was stupid and they'd rather someone with a more sensitive attitude was in charge of legal.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Officially, as head of GW legal, she was responsible for the unprofessional handling of this case, either by handling it unprofessionally herself or by being too weak to stop others handling it unprofessionally. And most if not all of GW's idiotic IP strategy happened during her responsibility.

Agree that she bears some responsibility for the unprofessional handling in the case, but I also think that overall strategy was driven by GW upper management and as an employee she had to follow their direction or quit, which I suspect she is probably wishing she had done. I have no doubt that GW upper management lied to her extensively about various aspects of the case, lies which came back and bit GW and Ms. Gill as the case progressed.

Tim

From my minimal understanding chapterhouse was producing items that gw doesn't. Since they are unique products I don't mind it, if anything it adds on to gw's ability to give you a great product. If they are willing to offer something gw won't thats a win win.

timd wrote:

xruslanx wrote:
You could take an optimistic view that the GW HQ decided her draconian attempts to control trivial IP issues was stupid and they'd rather someone with a more sensitive attitude was in charge of legal.

 Kroothawk wrote:
Officially, as head of GW legal, she was responsible for the unprofessional handling of this case, either by handling it unprofessionally herself or by being too weak to stop others handling it unprofessionally. And most if not all of GW's idiotic IP strategy happened during her responsibility.

Agree that she bears some responsibility for the unprofessional handling in the case, but I also think that overall strategy was driven by GW upper management and as an employee she had to follow their direction or quit, which I suspect she is probably wishing she had done. I have no doubt that GW upper management lied to her extensively about various aspects of the case, lies which came back and bit GW and Ms. Gill as the case progressed.

Tim

We know for a fact that the strategy was driven by GW upper management. During the case an email emerged from the head of USA saying he wanted Chapter House nailed for stepping over a line (I don't recall the precise wording). The case was driven by an anger motive regardless of the legal facts.

Whether management lied to her I don't know. I prefer to believe the "cock-up" theory. For example, various artwork that was claimed as GW's copyright emerged not to be GW's copyright because they had not signed contracts with the freelance artists involved. That looks more like a series of mistakes by the management and legal department over the years, rather than a decision to shaft their own head of legal.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Whether management lied to her I don't know. I prefer to believe the "cock-up" theory. For example, various artwork that was claimed as GW's copyright emerged not to be GW's copyright because they had not signed contracts with the freelance artists involved. That looks more like a series of mistakes by the management and legal department over the years, rather than a decision to shaft their own head of legal.

Do you think they knew that they didn't have the proper copyrights? Or do you think the now-management just treated this case like they would treat any case involving their current strategy for obtaining IP even though they were dealing with IP that was obtained (or not obtained) during a time of GWs existence when nobody really worried all that much about IP and IP enforcement?

I think the Adepta Sororitas cover is a good example of their current strategy involving free-lance artists (and probably how it should be):



Contracted art-work, artist clearly identified, copyright owner clearly identified, and I would imagine a proper contract in place. Do you think that their legal team just assumed that the way it should have been done was the way they have always done it only to find way to late in the game that it was a giant feth up decades ago?

Just wondering how much was malice and how much incompetence (not necessarily incompetence by the current team, but incompetence or lack of foresight by GW itself however many decades ago).

I think GW thought that because they are bigger than everyone else they can bully them into submission. They just want to own everything they've ever used and troll smaller companies with threats of financial ruin. CHS fought back. That was probably the first time GW started to check to see if they had all their paperwork in order. It's not so much incompetence, rather that actually proving they own their stuff wasn't part of their strategy before. They're IP bullies, actually proving ownership of their stuff comes second to just frightening competition away.

There is an expression that you should not ascribe to malice that which could be explained by incompetence. In this case I think it was a mixture of both.

My impression is that GW were used to crushing weak opposition by threats. They hit out at Chapter House from anger, and were wrong-footed when Chapter House failed to cave in as per usual procedure.

GW not having prepared their case properly, discovered too late that many of their supposed copyrights were not correctly set up; artists had not be contracted properly, or the paperwork was lost, and so on.

Since this problem went back clearly for decades, it was a long-term collective failure of GW's senior management and their Legal & Business Affairs department.

Kilkrazy wrote:We know for a fact that the strategy was driven by GW upper management. During the case an email emerged from the head of USA saying he wanted Chapter House nailed for stepping over a line (I don't recall the precise wording).

1.) AFAIK the head of GW USA is still that yes-woman without any known competence for the job, the strawwoman for Tom Kirby. And she wouldn't do anything like that.
2.) The whole lawsuit would have looked the same, if some choleric legal layman from GW higher management would have done all the work. Until the end, they were not aware of the minimal legal requirements for starting an IP lawsuit. So either the head of GW legal was totally incompetent or her input totally ignored. In both cases not a good recommentation for a future job.

d-usa wrote:Do you think they knew that they didn't have the proper copyrights?

I think some people at GW had a hunch that GW didn't invent halberds, grenade launchers, skulls, Tolkien, Aliens or the world. Not sure if the choleric leader of GW's legal campaign is aware of this. Obviously he didn't care enough to check, which is a legal requirements for filing such IP cases. And obviously he was too far away from conceptional or creative work to know how these things work.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is an expression that you should not ascribe to malice that which could be explained by incompetence. In this case I think it was a mixture of both.

I think you can only attribute this to incompetence when they are suing and not owning the copyrights, when they are then trying to steal artwork then it's pretty clearly malice.

I think it was Judge Gilbert (name?) who at one point in the case was encouraging a settlement and said something like; I really think you guys can work this out but, if you're not willing to do so, and this lawsuit is just to make the other party go away and die, you're not going to be happy with the results.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

We know for a fact that the strategy was driven by GW upper management. During the case an email emerged from the head of USA saying he wanted Chapter House nailed for stepping over a line (I don't recall the precise wording). The case was driven by an anger motive regardless of the legal facts.

Whether management lied to her I don't know. I prefer to believe the "cock-up" theory. For example, various artwork that was claimed as GW's copyright emerged not to be GW's copyright because they had not signed contracts with the freelance artists involved. That looks more like a series of mistakes by the management and legal department over the years, rather than a decision to shaft their own head of legal.

The actions (or inactions) that produced the problem may well have been cockups, but I seem to remember GW saying something like "Of course we have signed contracts for all of these freelance artists." when this statement was obviously a lie, given the later outing of GW trying to get artists to sign after-the-fact contracts. I think it very unlikely that they did not know the status of the contracts when the made that statement. I suspect that the lack of contracts was not communicated to Stevenson.

T

They were grossly unprepared and also made a ton of ownership claims that they had no way of enforcing. A number of items could have been figured out if they'd taken the time to do a 30 second google search, like determining who actually made the SAW walker for instance. Or if somebody two had halves of a brain cell to rub together and realize that skulls have exsisted since the dawn of man, halberds date back a thousand years, and grenade launchers had been around for nearly a century before GW exsisted.

As head of the IP department she should have had the ability to apply some logic and reason to the situation before it was taken to Foley and Lardner. Additionally if you are going to launch into a full suit you should at least know what you are suing over rather than going by what some random internet fanboy emails you about while trying to play internet police, do some research.

There was likely a massive failure on behalf of Foley and Lardner as it doesn't seem like they had any sort of grasp on what the miniatures industry entails. My lawyers hadn't ever heard of wargaming yet they did research and showed a pretty impressive understanding after just a few days time. IMO it seems like F&L just accepted everything GW said at face value, or they didn't advise GW strongly enough in regard to what they could realisticly enforce.

Seriously how bad do you have to mess things up in order to take somebody to court over a model they never made? (and had no connection to what so ever) Much less make no attempt to contact anyone or do 5 seconds of research that would verify the creator. It's a massive failure on their end and shows they'd rather just throw money and legal savagery at a problem and try and crush it when a few emails or phone calls would save them hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions.

GW is a complete gak fest when it comes to internal communication and cordination, the results of trial illustrate that very well.

The corporate lawyers I have worked with are cautious and careful. The first principle of litigation, according by a senior UK barrister, is not to threaten it unless you are fully prepared to go through with your threat.

GW, by any measure, failed in that respect.