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.

xruslanx wrote:

The judge reckoned that CHS lawyers were prolonging the case, I'll try and find the exact quote if you'll give me a sec.

Games Workshop paid a lot of money for its lawyers, and I know that Chapterhouse is getting free lawyers from a very expensive law firm. And I know that the free lawyers who are doing this pro bono work for the very expensive law firm would probably love to continue to do this and argue and appeal and whatnot.
But can't you guys just come up with some way of calling it a day?

Bolded the part that relates directly to your question. Though obviously the judge isn't actually basing that on his knowledge of the CHS and GW legal teams, I should point out.

Wow, man. Reading for comprehension should be higher on your "to do" list.

He didn't say anything that indicates he thinks they were prolonging the case. He was saying he believed the WOULD be willing to do it. And so what if they would? They want to win the case for their client and believe they have the ability to. If I was them, I'd argue the case to the very last minute.
What he did NOT say in that quote, however, is that they WERE prolonging the case.

Eric

You have to look at the whole transcript and the context of this hearing - he's not saying either side is stretching out the case. They are having a pretty involved argument over the injunction, something that should not really have required judicial intervention (this injunction required another motion and hearing later on).


He's frustrated and saying -

I know you GW lawyers have been paid a ton of money, and want to squeeze everything you can out of this injunction and this trial decision to justify your fees.

I know you pro bono lawyers have given up a ton in fees in order to do this pro bono and want to appeal this in the hopes it becomes a leading case (to justify all the billable hours you've given up).

But why can't both parties just stop arguing and arguing?

Everybody won some, everybody lost some. Everybody should be walking away from this saying, okay, I won some and I lost some. Do I really keep fighting over whether I won on 43 things as opposed to 47 or as opposed to 38?

czakk wrote:
You have to look at the whole transcript and the context of this hearing - he's not saying either side is stretching out the case. They are having a pretty involved argument over the injunction, something that should not really have required judicial intervention (this injunction required another motion and hearing later on).


He's frustrated and saying -

I know you GW lawyers have been paid a ton of money, and want to squeeze everything you can out of this injunction and this trial decision to justify your fees.

I know you pro bono lawyers have given up a ton in fees in order to do this pro bono and want to appeal this in the hopes it becomes a leading case (to justify all the billable hours you've given up).

But why can't both parties just stop arguing and arguing?

I think Kennelly's frustration is understandable, but that far into the case, it is also fair to say that Kennelly had a large part to play in how the case wound up at that point.

It would be interesting to get the dockets from some of his other big trials and see if he just favours a hands off approach.

xruslanx wrote:

 silent25 wrote:
Since the appeal has been officially submitted, might it be worth locking this thread and starting a new one with all the suitable links listed in the first message? Given every several pages there is a "what happened in the last hundred pages" question?

One thought on the settlement, is it likely that CHS' lawyers do not want to settle either? Reason being that the initial ruling currently sets a bad precedent for IP law in their view.

The judge reckoned that CHS lawyers were prolonging the case, I'll try and find the exact quote if you'll give me a sec.

Games Workshop paid a lot of money for its lawyers, and I know that Chapterhouse is getting free lawyers from a very expensive law firm. And I know that the free lawyers who are doing this pro bono work for the very expensive law firm would probably love to continue to do this and argue and appeal and whatnot.
But can't you guys just come up with some way of calling it a day?

Bolded the part that relates directly to your question. Though obviously the judge isn't actually basing that on his knowledge of the CHS and GW legal teams, I should point out.

Of course they are prolonging the case. They reckon on winning, and you can't do that by caving in.

czakk wrote:
It would be interesting to get the dockets from some of his other big trials and see if he just favours a hands off approach.

That it would be, but with respect to Kennelly, his role in the case is done unless it gets remanded by the appellate court.

His does seem to be pretty emotional though. But it seems to be bark more than bite. Remember when he threatened that rulings would flow like a river or some such about a year or so ago? That did not materialize.

Can't help thinking GW could do with all the money spent on lawyers about now

 loki old fart wrote:
Can't help thinking GW could do with all the money spent on lawyers about now

Understatement of the year.

I wonder if this is why GW hasn't filed a cross appeal thus far.

If the legal bills are as large as they are thought to be, a not insignificant chunk of GW's revenue has been diverted into fighting and losing this pointless case.

Even if GW won everything they could never recover their huge costs from CHS, and the reality is the CHS don't harm GW or steal their profits. GW have inflicted all this upon themselves for little gain even if they won everything, and they actually lost a lot.

Heck, CH probably gave GW some business, with exactly the things that GW actually won on- the Tervigon Conversion kit required a GW model, and was one of the easiest ways to get a not-in-production model for a long time- I have to wonder how many of the Carnifex Kit sales GW owes to CH between when they released the codex containing that unit and actually released the official model.

Anvildude wrote:
Heck, CH probably gave GW some business, with exactly the things that GW actually won on- the Tervigon Conversion kit required a GW model, and was one of the easiest ways to get a not-in-production model for a long time- I have to wonder how many of the Carnifex Kit sales GW owes to CH between when they released the codex containing that unit and actually released the official model.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily have pulled mine apart, or, depending on how I built my previous ones, I could use the extra parts to finish off the conversion kit into a complete model. I used to be on-side with the "but they generated sales for GW as well", and while it's certainly the case that CHS product probably encouraged purchases from GW as well, the number of purchases may not be significant enough to warrant the correlation. Even if that correlation exists, how are you going to establish it? You'd need to have people come forward that could produce a pair of receipts that were dated closely enough together, and maybe the model in question as well, to establish that it was mutually beneficial... And then you'd have to hope that the argument would even be accepted in court.

 poda_t wrote:

Anvildude wrote:
Heck, CH probably gave GW some business, with exactly the things that GW actually won on- the Tervigon Conversion kit required a GW model, and was one of the easiest ways to get a not-in-production model for a long time- I have to wonder how many of the Carnifex Kit sales GW owes to CH between when they released the codex containing that unit and actually released the official model.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily have pulled mine apart, or, depending on how I built my previous ones, I could use the extra parts to finish off the conversion kit into a complete model. I used to be on-side with the "but they generated sales for GW as well", and while it's certainly the case that CHS product probably encouraged purchases from GW as well, the number of purchases may not be significant enough to warrant the correlation. Even if that correlation exists, how are you going to establish it? You'd need to have people come forward that could produce a pair of receipts that were dated closely enough together, and maybe the model in question as well, to establish that it was mutually beneficial... And then you'd have to hope that the argument would even be accepted in court.

It's also technically immaterial when it comes to copyright infringement.

weeble1000 wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

Anvildude wrote:
Heck, CH probably gave GW some business, with exactly the things that GW actually won on- the Tervigon Conversion kit required a GW model, and was one of the easiest ways to get a not-in-production model for a long time- I have to wonder how many of the Carnifex Kit sales GW owes to CH between when they released the codex containing that unit and actually released the official model.

That's an assumption. I could just as easily have pulled mine apart, or, depending on how I built my previous ones, I could use the extra parts to finish off the conversion kit into a complete model. I used to be on-side with the "but they generated sales for GW as well", and while it's certainly the case that CHS product probably encouraged purchases from GW as well, the number of purchases may not be significant enough to warrant the correlation. Even if that correlation exists, how are you going to establish it? You'd need to have people come forward that could produce a pair of receipts that were dated closely enough together, and maybe the model in question as well, to establish that it was mutually beneficial... And then you'd have to hope that the argument would even be accepted in court.

It's also technically immaterial when it comes to copyright infringement.

aren't damages awarded on whether or not copyright was infringed? or did i miss something there. Or is that just an extra that's slapped on once it's proven?

 poda_t wrote:

aren't damages awarded on whether or not copyright was infringed? or did i miss something there. Or is that just an extra that's slapped on once it's proven?

Sure, except that whether your product makes the Plaintiff any money is irrelevant. There's statutory damages, lost profits, and defendant's profits. Statutory is set by statute: X amount per act of infringement. Defendant's profits are defendant's gross revenue minus expenses. Lost profits are the profits the Plaintiff would have made but for the sales of the infringing products, although even in that circumstance I don't think the infringing product being value-adding is relevant.

It may be from an equity standpoint, and it is relevant to the question of copyright fair use, or at least that was so in the CHS trial. Fair use has a lot of factors, part of which, put simply, is impact on the market for the infringed work. Another of which is whether the purpose or character of the infringing work.

So--to the attorneys in the thread--how costly is an appeal process for Games Workshop vs. the initial case? I would assume less expensive, since time on discovery, etc. is already (for the most part), taken care of...or? I ask, as given their latest financial disclosure, dropping another million or so pounds on the case may make them reconsider a settlement?

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
So--to the attorneys in the thread--how costly is an appeal process for Games Workshop vs. the initial case? I would assume less expensive, since time on discovery, etc. is already (for the most part), taken care of...or? I ask, as given their latest financial disclosure, dropping another million or so pounds on the case may make them reconsider a settlement?

Appeals aren't very expensive compared to trials, and it depends on what firm you use, how much effort you put into it, etc.

But it would be hard to do it for less than six figures. Maybe a couple hundred thousand, a little more for a cross appeal. Still way more than GW probably wants to spend at a time like this.

weeble1000 wrote:

 AgeOfEgos wrote:
So--to the attorneys in the thread--how costly is an appeal process for Games Workshop vs. the initial case? I would assume less expensive, since time on discovery, etc. is already (for the most part), taken care of...or? I ask, as given their latest financial disclosure, dropping another million or so pounds on the case may make them reconsider a settlement?

Appeals aren't very expensive compared to trials, and it depends on what firm you use, how much effort you put into it, etc.

But it would be hard to do it for less than six figures. Maybe a couple hundred thousand, a little more for a cross appeal. Still way more than GW probably wants to spend at a time like this.

GW filed a cross appeal.

NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that plaintiff, Games Workshop Limited, hereby crossappeals
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from: (1) the Judgment in a
Civil Action entered in this action on June 27, 2013 (Dkt. No. 403), including all prior and
underlying interlocutory orders; (2) the Order on Post-Trial Motions entered in this action on
December 5, 2013 (Dkt. No. 462); and (3) the Permanent Injunction entered in this action on
December 5, 2013 (Dkt. No. 465).

At first I thought that said "NOTICE OF HERESY!!"

So... between them is there anything GW and CH are leaving as is or are we basically getting each side saying they are appealing every decision that went the other sides way?

Is everything that has already been decided back up in the air at this point or just some of it?

Much, possibly most, from one side or another.

The exceptions are going to be the ones that GW removed prior to the trial.

The time taken is almost certainly going to be less - there is no jury, just a hearing followed by a judgement from the court of appeals and after that this whole mess will be done - while there can be further appeals, the likely answer to such requests will be 'no'.

The judge(s) can ask for material that expands upon the information available, but the whole process is likely to take much less than a year, assuming they can get it scheduled. (There is a shortage of judges on some circuits, but I think that Ill. is well provided for the appeals.)

The Auld Grump

I really and i mean really feel bad for the judge that has to sit down and read over this shlock. Even if its a cliff notes version their heads will be swimming after the first 6 months.

Also no surprise on the cross appeal, this isn't the first time GW has doubled down on horrible decisions.

 Warboss Gubbinz wrote:
I really and i mean really feel bad for the judge that has to sit down and read over this shlock. Even if its a cliff notes version their heads will be swimming after the first 6 months.

Also no surprise on the cross appeal, this isn't the first time GW has doubled down on horrible decisions.

Good counsel will narrow things down and summarize for the judges. Part of how you win an appeal is being able to give the court a fair, concise and aaccurate summary of the record below so the judges can focus on the legal argument.

czakk wrote:

Good counsel will narrow things down and summarize for the judges. Part of how you win an appeal is being able to give the court a fair, concise and aaccurate summary of the record below so the judges can focus on the legal argument.

Yeah, but if the court's only going by what the lawyers give them as an accurate summary... Who here really believes that GW's summary will be accurate? The only way the judge will know the difference, presuming they lie/misrepresent the truth, is to go back and look at the case. Right? In other words, he's still got to do the work.

Eric

On an appeal the written submissions typically go

Appellant's factum
Respondent's factum
Appellant's reply


If either party inaccurately or unfairly summarizes the facts or record the other side has a chance to call them on it. Things might be framed differently, but there shouldn't be much disagreement. Forcing the appeals judges to go back and check (or have their clerks check) would be a colossal feth up.

 MagickalMemories wrote:

czakk wrote:

Good counsel will narrow things down and summarize for the judges. Part of how you win an appeal is being able to give the court a fair, concise and aaccurate summary of the record below so the judges can focus on the legal argument.

Yeah, but if the court's only going by what the lawyers give them as an accurate summary... Who here really believes that GW's summary will be accurate? The only way the judge will know the difference, presuming they lie/misrepresent the truth, is to go back and look at the case. Right? In other words, he's still got to do the work.

Eric

Presumably the judge might look at five disputed points and if he found that in four of them one side's lawyers had lied/cheated/misrepresented/been economical avec le verite, then he would decide not to waste any more time and just find for the other side on everything.

Please note that I am not making any statement about the behaviour of either side's lawyers in this specific case.

I really hope the appeals go in favor of Chapterhouse. Games Workshop's levels of greed are staggering. At this rate I would not be surprised to see them filing for bankruptcy in the next few years as the price themselves right out of business.

What is a cross appeal, as opposed to just an appeal?

 Ouze wrote:
What is a cross appeal, as opposed to just an appeal?

Analogous to a cross-complaint: "Since the other party is dragging us into court anyway, here are the problems WE have with the judgment below."

I wonder what this is going to cost GW, and can they afford it .