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.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
How many genes have actually been 'created' though? Typically you import them from another species. Maybe the 'novel' combination of a certain gene from a bacteria into a specific plant could be protected, but not the genetic sequences themselves.

Its way off topic but the patents are essentially method patents that were written to read on genes, e.g. methods of identifying/isolating specific genes. You can't really 'create' a gene, you can discover that it exists and find a way to make that discovery a useful tool for doing things. Only the science to make said discovery is very expensive. It's a conflict between the nature of what should be patentable versus providing inventors with the financial incentive to advance "the progress of science and the useful arts" in a free market democracy.

Ultimately it is a constitutional issue because as several have said already, patent and copyright are embedded in the US Constitution.

Could a mod split this genes and patents discussion to their own thread as I'd like to comment on it and it is OT .

 Aerethan wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:
I've heard the "GW should've saved money and bought CHS" line a LOT in the years of this thread.
There's a lot of presumption in that statement. It assumes that CHS *would have* sold to GW. Any contract would, surely, have included a clause that he not go right back into business with his new start=up capital (LOL), which I have a hard time believing would've gone over with CHS.

Eric

A buyout settlement could have included a non compete clause that says CHS can't reform and create another company in direct competition within X years I'd imagine.

With how much GW has spent, if I were CHS and someone offered me a million to go quietly, I'd do it in a heartbeat and move on to other games or hobbies. But then again that's me.

The bigger point remains that GW didn't even consider a single settlement option that was presented because those offers didn't shut CHS down entirely for no money.

But if they settled and GW bought them out, what message would that sent to all the other 3rd party bit sites? CHS was the most brazen with associating their goods with GW. That would have sent a message that GW will write you a big fat check to get rid of you. All it would have done is encourage more bit sites, not less. There are sculptors on this board that are debating the merits of starting bit sites. If you knew that there was a fat check from GW if got too big, what would you do?

I for one would start a dozen bits sites, however that whole issue doesn't obviate the basic legal points.

 silent25 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:
I've heard the "GW should've saved money and bought CHS" line a LOT in the years of this thread.
There's a lot of presumption in that statement. It assumes that CHS *would have* sold to GW. Any contract would, surely, have included a clause that he not go right back into business with his new start=up capital (LOL), which I have a hard time believing would've gone over with CHS.

Eric

A buyout settlement could have included a non compete clause that says CHS can't reform and create another company in direct competition within X years I'd imagine.

With how much GW has spent, if I were CHS and someone offered me a million to go quietly, I'd do it in a heartbeat and move on to other games or hobbies. But then again that's me.

The bigger point remains that GW didn't even consider a single settlement option that was presented because those offers didn't shut CHS down entirely for no money.

But if they settled and GW bought them out, what message would that sent to all the other 3rd party bit sites? CHS was the most brazen with associating their goods with GW. That would have sent a message that GW will write you a big fat check to get rid of you. All it would have done is encourage more bit sites, not less. There are sculptors on this board that are debating the merits of starting bit sites. If you knew that there was a fat check from GW if got too big, what would you do?

I have to disagree.

If GW had bought out CHS as part of a settlement to the lawsuit, GW would have required CHS and it's principals to sign a Non-disclosure Agreement preventing them from discussing the terms of the settlement under threat of serious financial penalties. After paying off the principals, GW would have then simply shut down CHS, closed its web site, and gone on their merry way. GW would likely have made some sort of small announcment indicating that they had gotten their way and someone they felt was infringing on their IP was no longer in business. For all that the general public would have known, GW flexed it's legal might and CHS went away.

 silent25 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:

 MagickalMemories wrote:
I've heard the "GW should've saved money and bought CHS" line a LOT in the years of this thread.
There's a lot of presumption in that statement. It assumes that CHS *would have* sold to GW. Any contract would, surely, have included a clause that he not go right back into business with his new start=up capital (LOL), which I have a hard time believing would've gone over with CHS.

Eric

A buyout settlement could have included a non compete clause that says CHS can't reform and create another company in direct competition within X years I'd imagine.

With how much GW has spent, if I were CHS and someone offered me a million to go quietly, I'd do it in a heartbeat and move on to other games or hobbies. But then again that's me.

The bigger point remains that GW didn't even consider a single settlement option that was presented because those offers didn't shut CHS down entirely for no money.

But if they settled and GW bought them out, what message would that sent to all the other 3rd party bit sites? CHS was the most brazen with associating their goods with GW. That would have sent a message that GW will write you a big fat check to get rid of you. All it would have done is encourage more bit sites, not less. There are sculptors on this board that are debating the merits of starting bit sites. If you knew that there was a fat check from GW if got too big, what would you do?

Non-disclosure agreement, stipulation to infringement, joint statement. Solves those problems nicely. You can't talk about getting paid, you admit to infringing, and you publicly state that you have admitted to infringement and agreed to cease all sales. All of GW's goals would have been met. A settlement like that might cost more because it would be harder to swallow, but money talks, doesn't it. Pay me 5 times what my business is worth and I'll say whatever you want.

Ultimately, however it went down, the industry has benefited from the failure to settle.

Saldiven wrote:
I have to disagree.

If GW had bought out CHS as part of a settlement to the lawsuit, GW would have required CHS and it's principals to sign a Non-disclosure Agreement preventing them from discussing the terms of the settlement under threat of serious financial penalties. After paying off the principals, GW would have then simply shut down CHS, closed its web site, and gone on their merry way. GW would likely have made some sort of small announcment indicating that they had gotten their way and someone they felt was infringing on their IP was no longer in business. For all that the general public would have known, GW flexed it's legal might and CHS went away.

Except that all the other bit sites are still there and the problem remains. GW would have to go through the same process for each of them and pay those other sites off as well. Even with NDA's, I don't see how this would have discouraged other sites. At best it would have kept the status quo. There were plenty of sculptors who were telling CHS to not be so blatant with their associating with GW figs and that he was asking for trouble. They would assume that was what got CHS and they would continue to operate as normal. GW went after CHS because it was seen as the easiest target. If they had won in court, they would have gone after all the other sites with legal ruling in hand. By making CHS go away through settlement, they wouldn't have that threat to work with.

weeble1000 wrote:
Ultimately, however it went down, the industry has benefited from the failure to settle.

Can't disagree with that. Hopefully we will continue to see an increase in the quality on the third party front.

 silent25 wrote:

Saldiven wrote:
I have to disagree.

If GW had bought out CHS as part of a settlement to the lawsuit, GW would have required CHS and it's principals to sign a Non-disclosure Agreement preventing them from discussing the terms of the settlement under threat of serious financial penalties. After paying off the principals, GW would have then simply shut down CHS, closed its web site, and gone on their merry way. GW would likely have made some sort of small announcment indicating that they had gotten their way and someone they felt was infringing on their IP was no longer in business. For all that the general public would have known, GW flexed it's legal might and CHS went away.

Except that all the other bit sites are still there and the problem remains. GW would have to go through the same process for each of them and pay those other sites off as well. Even with NDA's, I don't see how this would have discouraged other sites. At best it would have kept the status quo. There were plenty of sculptors who were telling CHS to not be so blatant with their associating with GW figs and that he was asking for trouble. They would assume that was what got CHS and they would continue to operate as normal. GW went after CHS because it was seen as the easiest target. If they had won in court, they would have gone after all the other sites with legal ruling in hand. By making CHS go away through settlement, they wouldn't have that threat to work with.

weeble1000 wrote:
Ultimately, however it went down, the industry has benefited from the failure to settle.

Can't disagree with that. Hopefully we will continue to see an increase in the quality on the third party front.

It's unlikely that those other bits makers would have gotten the pro-bono representation that CHS received. That free representation is the only reason that CHS didn't fold up 3 years ago. If they had folded up, or if a settlement full of non-disclosures had ended as Weeble described, the situation would be back to the status quo of 3+ years ago, which GW was apparently moderaly ok with. A settlement where CHS couldn't reveal the terms and had to "admit" to infringement would not have resulted in an explosion of new bits makers as some have postulated.

The point about Chapter House is that they had taken legal advice on the use of trademarks and so on, and they believed they were legally in the clear. The other bits sites dodged the issue by making bits that look like GW bits but aren't named anything like them.

GW attacked Chapter House, lost most of their claims and won a few of them. The results are going to appeal and it may happen that GW lose the points they won in the first round.

 silent25 wrote:

Except that all the other bit sites are still there and the problem remains. GW would have to go through the same process for each of them and pay those other sites off as well. Even with NDA's, I don't see how this would have discouraged other sites. At best it would have kept the status quo. There were plenty of sculptors who were telling CHS to not be so blatant with their associating with GW figs and that he was asking for trouble. They would assume that was what got CHS and they would continue to operate as normal. GW went after CHS because it was seen as the easiest target. If they had won in court, they would have gone after all the other sites with legal ruling in hand. By making CHS go away through settlement, they wouldn't have that threat to work with.
.

CHS was unique amongst the third party bit companies in that they were openly displaying their components as being 'GW compatible'. Had they appeared to have been squashed legally(regardless of what actually happened behind the scenes), it would have dissuaded others from following their footsteps and listing their products in that style.

GW doesn't mind the likes of Scibor, Maxmini, or even Anvil too much. They've never tried to obviously piggyback off of GW, or associate with the GW IP. GW would rather they didn't exist, but they are a minor annoyance at best. It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I mean, can you imagine if Vic miniatures listed her Victorian Guard as 'Praetorians', and packaged them in GW style boxes to be sold in hobby shops, with 'GW compatible' stamped on the side? Or a Heavy Support Mortian Battle-Tank with 'Leman Russ Alternative' printed on the side?

That, my friend, is GW's worst nightmare. Other products, openly associated with their IP, sold in gaming stores, competing with their own range, and making them absolutely no profit whatsoever. Or in other words, a free and competitive market.

 Ketara wrote:

CHS was unique amongst the third party bit companies in that they were openly displaying their components as being 'GW compatible'. Had they appeared to have been squashed legally(regardless of what actually happened behind the scenes), it would have dissuaded others from following their footsteps and listing their products in that style.

It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I mean, can you imagine if Vic miniatures listed her Victorian Guard as 'Praetorians', and packaged them in GW style boxes to be sold in hobby shops, with 'GW compatible' stamped on the side? Or a Heavy Support Mortian Battle-Tank with 'Leman Russ Alternative' printed on the side?

That, my friend, is GW's worst nightmare. Other products, openly associated with their IP, sold in gaming stores, competing with their own range, and making them absolutely no profit whatsoever. Or in other words, a free and competitive market.

And that, if anything, is exactly and undeniably what Chapterhouse won at trial. The jury verdict explicitly demonstrates that 'compatible with Games Workshop X' is fair use.

"Eldar compatible bits" did not infringe the Eldar mark

"Tyranid compatible bits" did not infringe the Tyranid mark

"Space Marine compatible bits" did not infringe the Space Marine mark

"Specializing in Custome Bits and Sculpts for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" did not infringe the Warhammer mark nor the Warhammer 40,000 mark

Whenever the use of a mark was qualified, it was found to be fair use.

Take a look at chapterhousestudios.com. That website is compliant with the Court's injunction. Really. Go take a look. All of the bits makers should go take a look at a website compliant with the permanent injunction in the Chapterhouse case.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

CHS was unique amongst the third party bit companies in that they were openly displaying their components as being 'GW compatible'. Had they appeared to have been squashed legally(regardless of what actually happened behind the scenes), it would have dissuaded others from following their footsteps and listing their products in that style.

It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I mean, can you imagine if Vic miniatures listed her Victorian Guard as 'Praetorians', and packaged them in GW style boxes to be sold in hobby shops, with 'GW compatible' stamped on the side? Or a Heavy Support Mortian Battle-Tank with 'Leman Russ Alternative' printed on the side?

That, my friend, is GW's worst nightmare. Other products, openly associated with their IP, sold in gaming stores, competing with their own range, and making them absolutely no profit whatsoever. Or in other words, a free and competitive market.

And that, if anything, is exactly and undeniably what Chapterhouse won at trial. The jury verdict explicitly demonstrates that 'compatible with Games Workshop X' is fair use.

"Eldar compatible bits" did not infringe the Eldar mark

"Tyranid compatible bits" did not infringe the Tyranid mark

"Space Marine compatible bits" did not infringe the Space Marine mark

"Specializing in Custome Bits and Sculpts for Warhammer 40,000 and Fantasy" did not infringe the Warhammer mark nor the Warhammer 40,000 mark

Whenever the use of a mark was qualified, it was found to be fair use.

Take a look at chapterhousestudios.com. That website is compliant with the Court's injunction. Really. Go take a look. All of the bits makers should go take a look at a website compliant with the permanent injunction in the Chapterhouse case.

I dont think this ruling hurst GW as much, as it actually does FW. FW its a strictly bits and accessories company.

xxvaderxx wrote:


I dont think this ruling hurst GW as much, as it actually does FW. FW its a strictly bits and accessories company.

No, they're a bits and accessories arm of GW. They're not a separate company and have never been a separate company. They ARE GW.

Forgeworld is not strictly a bits and accessories company (though they do offer a lot of them).

Or am I just imagining their massive range of complete model kits?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Forgeworld is not strictly a bits and accessories company (though they do offer a lot of them).

Or am I just imagining their massive range of complete model kits?

You are being drawn in already.

Two new filings, court ordered settlement conference and an extended briefing timeline as a result.

Court ordered settlement conference, that's lawyer speak for "I still don't want to have to deal with this case, it's a waste of the courts time, SETTLE IT YOURSELVES ALREADY" right?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Court ordered settlement conference, that's lawyer speak for "I still don't want to have to deal with this case, it's a waste of the courts time, SETTLE IT YOURSELVES ALREADY" right?

It depends. Settlement conferences are usually run by experienced judges or senior lawyers. It can be a chance to get an honest third opinion from an expert about your chances and an opportunity to have someone mediate without all the formalities of court. It can also be a waste of time if neither party wants to settle or pare down the issues or agree on facts to speed up the trial. Then it can drag the whole litigation process out and increase costs (pay your lawyer to go to the settlement conference, and then pay them to go to the trial).

Mandatory case conferences and settlement hearings are the rage nowadays. It likely has nothing to do with this case in particular, and is just part of a trend of mandating settlement conferences. Unless one of the parties requested it confidentially.

 Ketara wrote:

GW doesn't mind the likes of Scibor, Maxmini, or even Anvil too much. They've never tried to obviously piggyback off of GW, or associate with the GW IP. GW would rather they didn't exist, but they are a minor annoyance at best. It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I disagree with that assertion. Those sites make alternatives and GW compatible parts. GW goes after any sources they see as threats to their sales and that they think they can squash. Blight Wheel got a C&D for a free figure they were giving away at Salute because it looked similar to a GW design. Things like changing terms of service so stores can't sell bits from GW kits are proof GW is looking at threats for very minor sources. These sites were not safe in any way.

From what I have seen of them, various European based companies like Bits Pudlo and Scibor make models that are in the style of GW/FW models, including complete figures and parts like heads and weapons. For example, Scibor's range of SF Knights.

The key difference between them and Chapter House is that Chapter House used the GW trademark terms in their product descriptions, and the Polish guys don't.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
From what I have seen of them, various European based companies like Bits Pudlo and Scibor make models that are in the style of GW/FW models, including complete figures and parts like heads and weapons. For example, Scibor's range of SF Knights.

The key difference between them and Chapter House is that Chapter House used the GW trademark terms in their product descriptions, and the Polish guys don't.

That's part of it. The other part has to do with IP laws and courts in Poland. As long as these Polish companies aren't explicitly using GW's trademarks to sell their products there isn't a lot GW can do to shut them down. In America or the UK, GW could go after small shops that make conversion bits even if they don't use GW trademarks to sell. That's why the outcome of the GW v. Chapterhouse lawsuit is so important here.

 silent25 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

GW doesn't mind the likes of Scibor, Maxmini, or even Anvil too much. They've never tried to obviously piggyback off of GW, or associate with the GW IP. GW would rather they didn't exist, but they are a minor annoyance at best. It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I disagree with that assertion. Those sites make alternatives and GW compatible parts. GW goes after any sources they see as threats to their sales and that they think they can squash. Blight Wheel got a C&D for a free figure they were giving away at Salute because it looked similar to a GW design. Things like changing terms of service so stores can't sell bits from GW kits are proof GW is looking at threats for very minor sources. These sites were not safe in any way.

Then how do you explain the survival of the following websites?

http://www.zealotminiatures.co.uk/shop.php#!/~/category/id=6272033&offset=0&sort=normal
http://www.anvilindustry.co.uk/
http://stores.ebay.com/Kromlech-Bits-and-Minis/_i.html?rt=nc&_sid=137867022&_trksid=p4634.c0.m14.l1513&_pgn=1
https://curiousconstructs.theslowcentury.com/ocart/
http://www.freewebstore.org/Great-White-Miniatures/Abrogator_SPG_conversion_kit/p2301450_10791160.aspx
http://gwfwmort.bplaced.net/web1/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&product_id=3&category_id=3&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=2&lang=en
http://ratgard.com/
http://talasaprime.blogspot.co.uk/p/for-sale.html
http://www.tsipisgames.com/


In that little list there, I have everything from torsos and titans, to fullblown vehicles and battlesuits, to conversion kits aimed at GW sets. Yet none of these stores have been closed down. It's also mainly US and UK companies. What's more, I could make that list three times as large, I just got bored of clicking the URL button.

Yes, GW does issue C&D's to companies other than CHS. That does not counteract my basic premise, which is that the main reason that they went after CHS was because CHS blatantly associated and listed their product alongside what GW consider to be their IP.

The vast, vast majority of third part bits are safe from litigation, because GW has to have something to assert in court, and 'you can glue it to our product' is not sufficient for that purpose. To get a C&D from them, you usually always needed to either:

A) Produce something that was far too aesthetically close to the GW miniature, allowing them to invoke IP/copyright laws.
B) Publicly or openly associate your miniature/component with the GW brand.


CHS have gone to court, and have now had it defined that a company is free to do the latter without fear of repercussion. They didn't quite pull off the former, but are currently working on it. If they succeed, then GW's legal policy begins to fall apart.

IF CHS manages to pull off the next count, that makes things very dicey for GW indeed. It means that in the US at least, companies like Kromlech could genuinely package their stuff up with the words 'GW compatible', and have it stuck on the shelf of every FLGS over there next to the GW brand. That is an absolute worst case scenario for GW with regards to third party market, and is why they are frantically pouring money in and hoping to stop that ever being a possibility.

To recap, they can never squash all third party bits (legally speaking), and the sales of them are usually web-based and small enough not to step on their toes. But in the US especially, where the FLGS rules(as opposed to GW stores), if those kits start hitting them shelves with their name on, however much in the small print, it will dent their profits.

After all, why buy a GW chimera for my guardsmen, when I can buy a clearly marked Ramshackle 'Counts As' Chimera for less money? I mean, it even has a Hellhound and Hydra variant to keep the aesthetic!

http://shop.ramshacklegames.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=45&products_id=382
http://shop.ramshacklegames.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=45&products_id=474
http://shop.ramshacklegames.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=45&products_id=408

A stand of those, marked as 'GW Compatible' sat next to the GW stand? Sign me, and a lot of people up I think. Add on another two or three cheaper alternate chimeras(they already exist), and then all of a sudden, the GW Chimera kit loses 80% of its sales from that store.
What's more, it means that when GW announces its annual price hike, and the GW chimera goes up to £24.00 each, more and more people begin to buy the £20.00 Ramshackle one, simply because it's there and cheaper.

Make no mistake, GW wishes to avoid such a free market economy. But in the US at least, they may be looking at it within a few years. All thanks to CHS.

Heaven forbid the land of the free enforce a free market economy. Healthy competition will be good for GW; one might argue that it's already forced them to innovate to an extent. Some recent ventures they've undertaken will possibly have negative consequences for them but it at least shows that they're finally shaking things up. Now if they can just get rid of top management that seem to have no idea an industry exists outside of GW and we might see some "great news".

Arguably GW hasn't sued anyone else because they couldn't afford to do so on account of the Chapterhouse case. Financially, GW straight up can't handle two big cases. If GW filed another lawsuit and one of the firms that had offered CHS pro bono representation but didn't get on the case wanted to jump on the destroy GW bandwagon, GW would have been in massive trouble.

The risk for GW us now that there is a roadmap to beating GW in court. There are expert witnesses with experience. There are reports on the public record. Alan Merrett authenticated a miniatures game called "Space Marine" that made it into evidence. Rejections of shoulder pads are in the public record.

If GW files a case in the US that looks anything like GW v CHS, GW is opening that can of worms all over again, and if there is an appellate court ruling unfavorable to GW, you can absolutely forget it.

GW doesn't even have a good reason to deny venue in the seventh circuit.

GW sued CHS. I submit that this was always intended to be the first of many cases and it got stopped COLD, first time out of the gate like we were all waiting for GW to make the mistake. GW hasn't sued anyone else because it can't afford to, because a few hours of lawyer bills turned into a multi-million dollar years long lawsuit that ain't over yet.

weeble1000 wrote:
Arguably GW hasn't sued anyone else because they couldn't afford to do so on account of the Chapterhouse case.

I would like to think that GW has learned its lesson. I can understand them fighting this appeal because the consequences for them failing are so potentially dire but I can also see GW being highly selective with its C&Ds from now on, possibly going so far as to only use them on people who actually deserve to receive them.

GW would be extremely foolish to create a repeat of the CHS fiasco, especially if it is in another legal jurisdiction such as the UK. Logic is not something that is commonly associated with GW's management of course.

 Ketara wrote:

 silent25 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

GW doesn't mind the likes of Scibor, Maxmini, or even Anvil too much. They've never tried to obviously piggyback off of GW, or associate with the GW IP. GW would rather they didn't exist, but they are a minor annoyance at best. It's the Chapterhouse style of 'conversion kits' that worries GW. It makes it waaaay too easy for people to make alternative versions for models in their Universe, and market them as such.

I disagree with that assertion. Those sites make alternatives and GW compatible parts. GW goes after any sources they see as threats to their sales and that they think they can squash. Blight Wheel got a C&D for a free figure they were giving away at Salute because it looked similar to a GW design. Things like changing terms of service so stores can't sell bits from GW kits are proof GW is looking at threats for very minor sources. These sites were not safe in any way.

Then how do you explain the survival of the following websites?

::Snip::

Just because there are companies out there making product does not mean they aren't taking liberties with GW's IP. Claiming they are on the up and up simply because GW hasn't slapped them yet doesn't hold much water. If you have a busy highway with thousands of motorists and only one traffic cop working it do all the speeding motorist have a sanction to go as fast as they want simply because the cop can only pull over one car at a time?

The simple existence of a website being in operation it's not proof of anything, heck I can write up a list about 3 times as long of sites that offer directly recast GW product which certainly isn't legal or tolerated by GW but they are chugging along just fine and none of them have been sued yet. (much less shut down)

GW picked CHS because they saw a company that they disliked and thought they could bully into compliance, they didn't expect a full blown legal battle and as a result of this case it has stalled a lot of their planned efforts to go after other companies. how many C&Ds have been reported being issued on GW's behalf since this trial began? Even with a long list of known illegal recasters why hasn't there been another lawsuit filed by GW in the last three years? There were certainly quite a few floating before the trail, but not afterwards. Could it be that GW realized just how costly these battle are? Even with their size even a few dozen of these cases would easily sink GW. Did they discover that their castle moat strategy against the industry and their "rock solid IP" was unprotectable rubbish they stole from other sources?

Yes, GW does issue C&D's to companies other than CHS. That does not counteract my basic premise, which is that the main reason that they went after CHS was because CHS blatantly associated and listed their product alongside what GW consider to be their IP.

The vast, vast majority of third part bits are safe from litigation, because GW has to have something to assert in court, and 'you can glue it to our product' is not sufficient for that purpose. To get a C&D from them, you usually always needed to either:

A) Produce something that was far too aesthetically close to the GW miniature, allowing them to invoke IP/copyright laws.
B) Publicly or openly associate your miniature/component with the GW brand.

A lot of the other companies have stuff that is just as "offending" as CHS does, they just haven't been slapped yet, most of those companies have also started up after the start of the GW/CH trial. Since many of them came along after the fact it's hard to say who's being the most blatant. Heck Victoria openly refers to her models as being "Not-Cadians or Acadians". It's like coming in with a company that creates "IePhones" and not-IPhones while following the same design. Just because people make stuff with a nod and a wink for what it's uses are intended to be doesn't mean they aren't fully riding on the coat tails of GW IP. Just because they haven't gotten a C&D (yet) doesn't mean they won't end up in court. Also there's no requirement to get a "friendly" C&D before you end up in court, my first communication ever with GW was when I received a summons notice.

So much of this case is being focused on in the legal world because the line needs to be drawn and asserted for the industry, GW has run roughshod and twisted the legal system to their advantage for years and that finally came back and bit them on the ass as several large law firms have taken notice and aren't willing to let them continue making claims outside what is protected by law.

This case has definitely caused GW a bloody nose and made them do a double take and re-examine just how freely they hand out threats of impending legal action.

I frankly wish the same lesson could be taught to Palladium Books as their policy of sending C&D letters to people who post conversions into and out of their games seems to be about as far reaching as GW's and just about as hated.

It is strange how much different the fantasy wargaming market is from historical wargaming. The setting of a fantasy game is definitely important and well worth protecting to a reasonable degree.

But at the same time so much of what we experience in the various sci-fi/fantasy genres is powered by longstanding tropes and classic imagery. This does not mean you can't do anything unique, just that what you do that is unique is often very narrow.

GW seems to have a huge problem with people wanting to engage in its fictional universes without being 100% beholden to an exclusively Games Workshop ecosystem of products. Not that GW was always this way of course, but it has been for the past decade.

GW seems to dislike a customer buying a product from another manufacturer to use with its game or with its related products, and it seems that the only way GW can conceive of to prevent that is to rely on copyright law to close off access to its expansive, open-ended, trope fueled and derivative fictional universes.

The problem comes in where lines are properly and justifiably drawn in a way that serves the public good. Those answers are sorely lacking within the corpus of American jurisprudence, as well as in other western countries.

This case may help to draw those lines a little bit more clearly, not only for the fantasy table top wargaming industry, but far beyond. Historical wargaming benefits from the clear line of military material being firmly rooted in the public domain. And so there's little enough bickering.

So too is there little enough bickering in the fantasy wargaming market when those with a stake in it are content to compete by engaging with customers, and when that happens, we as customers win. You want my money, show me something worth buying.

Victoria Lamb, for example, should be able to tell her customers that her unique sculpts would, in her opinion, make excellent alternative models for Games Workshop Imperial Guard armies. Is her artwork any less unique just because Games Workshop has a part in creating a demand for ~28mm futuristic soldiers? Does Games Workshop own any expression of a futuristic soldier styled after British soldiers of the Anglo-Zulu wars just because they created one at some point in the past?

And what about that expression of Games Workshop? Where is the line drawn in terms of the protected expression ? GW did not invent pith helmets, for exmple, and GW drew a well-established combination of elements from what we all know is solidly ensconced in the public domain.

But GW was the first to throw in a laser rifle and sell it, maybe. GW has sold it off and on for a long time. Does the fact that GW has made money selling it obfuscate the dearth of originality in the work of art itself? Does the work of art gain some sort of greater intrinsic value because it is part of a broader fictional universe?

It may be true that Victoria Lamb saw what GW did, saw that there was a market for it, saw that said market was not being supplied, and took advantage of that. Undeniably she took something from Games Workshop. But did she take something that belonged exclusively to Games Workshop? Did she unfairly appropriate the property of Games Workshop?

Games Workshop would be content to say yes just because Victoria Lamb looked first to Games Workshop's artwork before creating her own. But isn't that exactly what GW did in the first place; look first to the work of someone else to create its own art?

 paulson games wrote:

Just because there are companies out there making product does not mean they aren't taking liberties with GW's IP. Claiming they are on the up and up simply because GW hasn't slapped them yet doesn't hold much water.

As you yourself know though Paulson, what GW considers to be their IP, and what is actually their IP are two very separate kettles of fish. Scibor does fellows that look a lot like space marines. This does not however, mean that they are space marines. There's enough variation that pretty much any lawsuit aimed in their direction would most likely flop.

If you have a busy highway with thousands of motorists and only one traffic cop working it do all the speeding motorist have a sanction to go as fast as they want simply because the cop can only pull over one car at a time?

GW has a legal department. They're not just one guy, if they wanted to launch lawsuits, they could have done plenty before this case. I remember when CHS popped into existence, they're not that old. The Kromlech.eu page on ebay has been functioning since 2004, so GW had plenty of time to nail them prior to CHS even existing. The same goes for Maxmini, Hitechminiatures, and several other names.

The question is, what made GW choose to nail CHS, whilst all these other similar stores had often existed quite happily with C&D's for years? The answer is that out of all them, CHS were the first ones to openly affiliate their product with GW IP.

The simple existence of a website being in operation it's not proof of anything,

It's proof of the fact that long before CHS reared its head out of the water, other companies were performing a similar role in the market and not being dragged to court for it.

heck I can write up a list about 3 times as long of sites that offer directly recast GW product which certainly isn't legal or tolerated by GW but they are chugging along just fine and none of them have been sued yet. (much less shut down)

Please do, if they're UK/EU based. I think you'll find that those which operate anywhere near a jurisdiction GW can nail them in, they've done their best to do so. As a Swapmod, I've dealt with many cases of recast product in the UK, and even had discussions with Forgeworld over a few of them.

Anything like that, GW stamps on with both feet.

GW picked CHS because they saw a company that they disliked and thought they could bully into compliance, they didn't expect a full blown legal battle and as a result of this case it has stalled a lot of their planned efforts to go after other companies.

I agree that they didn't expect CHS to fight it out or get pro bono. But had CHS folded and gone under, there is no doubt in my mind that Scibor or Bitspudlo would still be functioning today. They're unique enough that unless the owners start openly printing, 'made for use with GW' on the side of their product boxes, GW can't generally touch them.

how many C&Ds have been reported being issued on GW's behalf since this trial began?

A few. Some were seemingly spurious, others not so much.

Even with a long list of known illegal recasters why hasn't there been another lawsuit filed by GW in the last three years? There were certainly quite a few floating before the trail, but not afterwards.Could it be that GW realized just how costly these battle are? Even with their size even a few dozen of these cases would easily sink GW. Did they discover that their castle moat strategy against the industry and their "rock solid IP" was unprotectable rubbish they stole from other sources?

Because nobody else has either a) chosen to fight a legal action against any C&D actions issued, and b) nobody else has yet infringed upon GW's perceived (or at least, by GW) IP to the extent that CHS studios did. There has been a general trend in that direction of edging towards it, with the arrival of PuppetsofWar, WarChimera and the like, but nobody else has yet to push that particular boat as far as CHS did. They're simply trading small scale for the time being, and waiting to see the outcome of the trial, I should think.

In terms of C&D's issued pre-CHS, there were a few individual model cases, but nothing major. If you're trying to say that the GW C&D rate has gone down after the CHS trial started, I'd be inclined to disagree.

A lot of the other companies have stuff that is just as "offending" as CHS does, they just haven't been slapped yet,most of those companies have also started up after the start of the GW/CH trial.

I repeat, none of those companies have stamped, 'Made for use with GW models' on the product description, inside web categories labelled by Warhammer 40K factions. None of them. The closest you'll get are PuppetsofWar, who still word obliquely. Hence they haven't been nailed by lawsuits.

I do actually partially agree with you, but only the premise of aesthetic. I heard that PuppetsofWar were nailed with a C&D or two for individual products, but they just removed the relevant products from sale. They're still in business, and I daresay still would be even if CHS had never happened. Companies in general are skating closer to the line in terms of aesthetic, but even then, most have never been quite as obvious as the 'Doomseer'.

Since many of them came along after the fact it's hard to say who's being the most blatant. Heck Victoria openly refers to her models as being "Not-Cadians or Acadians".

In private posts in a personal capacity, not in the product descriptions. And even then, 'not-cadian' is still infinitely more oblique then 'Model designed to be used with Games Workshop Cadians!!!'

Just because people make stuff with a nod and a wink for what it's uses are intended to be doesn't mean they aren't fully riding on the coat tails of GW IP.

I think that one has to assume in a case like this, that the 'Hobby' consists of more than GW soldiers. I might be doing the same as Blight Wheel Miniatures, and making 'Grants Spectres'. Now those components might well be totally compatible with GW Cadians, but at the end of the day, its still my 'human sci fi soldiers' miniatures line. That's not GW IP. Ramshackle's flame tank might well be usable as a GW Hellhound, but its still Ramshackles 'Flame Tank'.

Sure, their stuff can be used with GW. It might even have been designed specifically so that it could. But nothing about it treads directly on GW's toes. It most certainly isn't labelled 'Death Angel Doors', and placed in a category marked 'Space Marines Compatible'.

Just because they haven't gotten a C&D (yet) doesn't mean they won't end up in court.

I doubt that they would. GW simply does not overly care regarding the likes of HiTechminiatures. If a product comes up they're edgy about aesthetically, they sometimes demand that that product is removed. But I doubt that they would ever demand EVERYTHING removed for a single model that edges slightly over the line aesthetically. Why? Because that backs the owner into a corner. It makes it likely that they might resort to court if they can fund it. If its just one model? They'll just take it down. And that in turn keeps their stuff on the internet, not too visibly similar to GW product, and in no way openly affiliated with GW or what they perceive to be 'their' aesthetic. GW wins what they're after at the cost of a piece of paper, and the third party store is kept on a shelf where GW is comfortable with them being.

But CHS didn't just edge slightly over the line of GW's comfort zone, they ran across it Rambo style guns blazing. So GW, like fools, turned on the pressure hose, and expected him to wilt. If they were a little smarter, they would have sent him a little letter, telling him to remove a few products, and rename his webstore categories, and he probably would have done it, rather than sit in court. Unfortunately for them, they miscalculated.

They've yet to try this approach with anyone else, because nobody else has yet done a CHS. They haven't needed to. The other third party companies are all watching and waiting to see how this ends, and won't take any precipitate action until then. That's when we'll see if GW have learned the lesson or not.

Weeble in regards to fantasy: try a google search on TSR and their lawsuit history and you'll see that they established a similar trend to what GW is on right now. They had built up much of their product on the backs of pre-existing imagery and concepts, when they hit a certain mass they became the typical corporate giant that felt it was unassailable and could do what they wanted. They started believing all the various internal hype and self delusion and opted to start using copyright enforcement as their weapon against those who'd dare participate in using "their" game and products.

They sued a number of fan publications and even tried to claim a trademark on the word "dragon" in order to keep other fantasy authors from using it. Sounds a bit like a certain double headed imperial eagle claim to me...

Rather than concentrate on making a superior and engaging product they went on a crusade against their own fans, much like GW has been doing in recent years. The result is that the drove away enough players that their fan base crumbled and the company ended up in bankruptcy before being bought out by WOTC. There's a lot of very interesting comparisons between what TSR did and what GW is currently doing. They were once an industry defining company but now they've become a boated corporate dinosaur unaware of how they once achieved their success through being creative and innovative, as a result will be largely unable to maintain success as they've cut ties with all the things that originally generated their customer base.

An interesting note about TSR is that during their collapse years they were being headed by a board member with actual psychological problems and paranoia issues, I wonder what GW's excuse is?