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.

A lot, and yes, sadly.

There is even a provision that will let them offset their legal expenses against profits and reduce their tax bill.

I wasn't just speaking financially, I meant the effect on players.

czakk wrote:
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.

Given the previous behavior of GW's counselors... has anybody set up a betting pool yet?

The Auld Grump

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is even a provision that will let them offset their legal expenses against profits and reduce their tax bill.

So UK citizens pay part of GW's bill?

This is pretty standard. Pretty much anyone can offset expenses of various kinds against income and reduce tax liability. In very general terms it's referred to as "itemizing deductions" in the US.

I do it all the time. For example, we pay tuition for my wife and offset that tuition expense against my income and therefore pay less in taxes. In a very real way, the American people are helping pay for my wife to go to college.

Maybe the rules are different for big companies, but for any company with annual turnover below £1.5m you can't offset legal expenses against tax.

It's in the non-allowable pool (alongside things like depreciation, disallowable entertaining, losses on sale of fixed assets etc).

 Baragash wrote:
Maybe the rules are different for big companies, but for any company with annual turnover below £1.5m you can't offset legal expenses against tax.

It's in the non-allowable pool (alongside things like depreciation, disallowable entertaining, losses on sale of fixed assets etc).

I haven't done anything in relation to corporation tax for many years now, but 20 years ago when I was studying I seem to remember legal expenses (one can incur legal expenses for all sorts of things, and protecting one's IP, even aggressively, is clearly in the company's interests when it comes to demonstrating the matter to HMRC) being an allowable expense, but it was fines and penalties that were not. Of course things may well have changed, or my memory may be suspect as its not an area I have any current experience.

 Kroothawk wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is even a provision that will let them offset their legal expenses against profits and reduce their tax bill.

So UK citizens pay part of GW's bill?

Yes, but only a part, and indirectly.

The deduction comes off of their total revenue, which thereby reduces the amount of taxes owed. It's not any different than writing off any other expense or allowable deduction on a tax return.

 Osbad wrote:

 Baragash wrote:
Maybe the rules are different for big companies, but for any company with annual turnover below £1.5m you can't offset legal expenses against tax.

It's in the non-allowable pool (alongside things like depreciation, disallowable entertaining, losses on sale of fixed assets etc).

I haven't done anything in relation to corporation tax for many years now, but 20 years ago when I was studying I seem to remember legal expenses (one can incur legal expenses for all sorts of things, and protecting one's IP, even aggressively, is clearly in the company's interests when it comes to demonstrating the matter to HMRC) being an allowable expense, but it was fines and penalties that were not. Of course things may well have changed, or my memory may be suspect as its not an area I have any current experience.

Like I said, I only do it for a company below £1.5m turnover, and the rules may be different, but the current list of profit adjustments (additions in favour of HMRC) are: Depreciation, Disallowable Entertainment, Donations, Legal and Professional Fees, Net Loss on Sales of Fixed Assets, Penalties and Fines, Unpaid Employee's Renumeration.

TBH I've not had to look into the detail through the course of doing it, so maybe "legal fees" =/= "legal expenses" and some of the cost can be offset against tax, but not all of it.

 Kriswall wrote:

I do it all the time. For example, we pay tuition for my wife and offset that tuition expense against my income and therefore pay less in taxes. In a very real way, the American people are helping pay for my wife to go to college.

Slinging this off topic, but that's one way to look at it. The other way is that you are reducing the amount of your assets that are forcibly removed and redistributed as others see fit. In a very real way, you are attempting to protect the theft of your wealth.

Okay, that's enough of a digression into the ever-fascinating world of tax law. Move along.

I have learned that Mr. Moskin has been mailing out the permanent injunction to sculptors and artists involved with CHS.


Appeals wise, the last time I checked nothing new had been filed - which is to be expected.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

czakk wrote:
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.

Given the previous behavior of GW's counselors... has anybody set up a betting pool yet?

The Auld Grump

I didn't know GW was seeking therapy....
When you're talking about legal matters, it's counsel. When it's therapy, it's a counselor.
A betting pool for what? Really, given the conduct, it's anyone's guess what GW is going to pull out of their Finerump. I'm more surprised they're not going to try to settle this out-of-court to make this go away.

I think our friends to the south do use counselor or counselor at law.

czakk wrote:
I have learned that Mr. Moskin has been mailing out the permanent injunction to sculptors and artists involved with CHS.


Appeals wise, the last time I checked nothing new had been filed - which is to be expected.

Czakk.. what does that mean, exactly?

It SOUNDS to me like he is frivolously firing off letters to see if people will fold immediately and do GW bidding...

-P

 porkuslime wrote:

czakk wrote:
I have learned that Mr. Moskin has been mailing out the permanent injunction to sculptors and artists involved with CHS.


Appeals wise, the last time I checked nothing new had been filed - which is to be expected.

Czakk.. what does that mean, exactly?

It SOUNDS to me like he is frivolously firing off letters to see if people will fold immediately and do GW bidding...

-P

That's the impression I got as well, that he wants to throw legalese at people who won't understand it to make it look like GW have a strong position to go after individual sculptors if they don't stop making things even remotely like anything GW produces.
Which sounds despicable, and in line with everything we know about him.

czakk wrote:
I have learned that Mr. Moskin has been mailing out the permanent injunction to sculptors and artists involved with CHS.


Appeals wise, the last time I checked nothing new had been filed - which is to be expected.

If you are comfortable saying, where did you learn that?

Edit: Do you have any details? Which artists/sculptors? Does anyone have a copy of the communications? Is this direct from someone who received such a communication, or did you hear it second hand?

This is interesting.

Can't say anything more unfortunately. Not trying to be mysterious.



Re: Injunctions
Short answer - nothing hinky is going on with Mr. Moskin sending letters. It's a procedural step.

An injunction is a court order. Like any court order, you have to serve people with it. Otherwise they won't have any idea it exists (other than CHS). If you read the injunction, the beginning goes like this:

Whereas this action was tried by a jury with Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly presiding, and the jury rendered a verdict on June 14, 2013 finding infringement of certain copyrights and trademarks of Games Workshop Limited (“Games Workshop”), and whereas the Court entered Judgment on June 27, 2013, the Court now issues this Permanent Injunction against Chapterhouse Studios LLC (“Chapterhouse”):.

1. Chapterhouse, its agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and suppliers, and all persons acting in concert or privity with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from:

a. Reproducing, distributing, displaying, preparing derivative works, selling or otherwise infringing any of Games Workshop’s copyrights with respect to the below Chapterhouse products...

From the bolded part you can see that the order actually applies to more than just CHS and GW. 3rd party suppliers, artists, (former) employees etc... are also caught by the order and you would want to serve them with the order.

czakk wrote:
Can't say anything more unfortunately. Not trying to be mysterious.

Short answer - nothing hinky is going on.


Re: Injunctions
An injunction is a court order. Like any court order, you have to serve people with it. If you read the injunction, the beginning goes like this:

Whereas this action was tried by a jury with Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly presiding, and the jury rendered a verdict on June 14, 2013 finding infringement of certain copyrights and trademarks of Games Workshop Limited (“Games Workshop”), and whereas the Court entered Judgment on June 27, 2013, the Court now issues this Permanent Injunction against Chapterhouse Studios LLC (“Chapterhouse”):.

1. Chapterhouse, its agents, representatives, employees, assigns, and suppliers, and all persons acting in concert or privity with them, are hereby permanently enjoined from:

a. Reproducing, distributing, displaying, preparing derivative works, selling or otherwise infringing any of Games Workshop’s copyrights with respect to the below Chapterhouse products...

From the bolded part you can see that the order actually applies to more than just CHS and GW. 3rd party suppliers, artists, (former) employees etc... are also caught by the order and you would want to serve them with it.

FRCP 65(d)(2) Injunctions and Restraining Orders:

(2) Persons Bound. The order binds only the following who receive actual notice of it by personal service or otherwise:

(A) the parties;

(B) the parties’ officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and

(C) other persons who are in active concert or participation with anyone described in Rule 65(d)(2)(A) or (B).

Note that the header of the case is "Games Workshop Limited v Chapterhouse Studios LLC."

In general non-parties aren't bound but (C) can catch 3rd parties who know about the injunction and work with chapterhouse.

czakk wrote:
In general non-parties aren't bound but (C) can catch 3rd parties who know about the injunction. work with chapterhouse, and violate the injunction.

Yea, who are in "active participation or concert" with the party.

Rule 65(d)(2) clarifies two ambiguities in former Rule 65(d). The former rule was adapted from former 28 U.S.C. §363, but omitted a comma that made clear the common doctrine that a party must have actual notice of an injunction in order to be bound by it.Amended Rule 65(d) restores the meaning of the earlier statute, and also makes clear the proposition that an injunction can be enforced against a person who acts in concert with a party's officer, agent, servant, employee, or attorney.

weeble1000 wrote:

czakk wrote:
In general non-parties aren't bound but (C) can catch 3rd parties who know about the injunction. work with chapterhouse, and violate the injunction.

Yea, who are in "active participation or concert" with the party. The key word there, the very important word there, the essential word there, is "active."

Are you suggesting that one of Chapterhouse's contractors is violating the injunction? Was this communication a C&D?

Nope, not trying to suggest anything at all - just trying to explain why people other than CHS would get served with an injunction. To be more clear, the extent of the information I have is that the injunction is being mailed to people.

This is in response to people wondering about why Mr. Moskin would send out letters and suggesting something nefarious was up. He's just working through what ever list of contacts he's got and sending everyone a letter to ensure that everyone has been served and put on notice.

Edit: we don't need to go 'round and 'round about this. No worries czakk. Thanks for the update.

Edit

No worries

 poda_t wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

czakk wrote:
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.

Given the previous behavior of GW's counselors... has anybody set up a betting pool yet?

The Auld Grump

I didn't know GW was seeking therapy....
When you're talking about legal matters, it's counsel. When it's therapy, it's a counselor.
A betting pool for what? Really, given the conduct, it's anyone's guess what GW is going to pull out of their Finerump. I'm more surprised they're not going to try to settle this out-of-court to make this go away.

Counselor is, in point of fact, an accepted term for attorney - you may want to look it up before correcting somebody, next time.




While the full term is 'counselor at law' it is most often shortened to 'counselor' in general conversation.

While counselor is a somewhat anachronistic term for lawyer, it remains in use, and is, in some jurisdictions, preferred to the full term of counselor at (or 'of') law.

A therapist is also a counselor - one that gives counsel.

Counsel is the advice that a counselor gives their client - whether legal, medical, political, or mental health related.

The Auld Grump, then did the king give thanks to his counselors for their wise counsel....

*EDIT* Back on topic....

Is Moskin & Co being as scattershot with their notices as they were with the initial complaints, or are they limiting their targets to the ones actually named in the course of the trial?

For any other representatives it would go without saying, but after Paulson got pulled in the first time....

The Auld Grump

I can confirm that Moskin has emailed numerous artists with a court injunction, I spoke firsthand with somebody who received an injunction notice stating that he was required to hand over any materials for destruction and named off the offending items. Which is amusing because the guy who got this email didn't actually create or work on anything specifically named in the list, (he did provide a model to CH, however it wasn't named in the list) which seems that it was just a blanket email sent to all of the artists. Since many of the items are still in appeal it indicates to me that he's fishing to see who gets spooked and hands over models or molds for destruction?

Seemed rather shady that GW/Moskin would be hitting up the individual artists to hand over materials which the court hasn't finalized on yet. If I'm not mistaken it's up to CH to turn over those items and not the individuals? (also assuming that the appeals didn't delay such an order)

However I find a few things confusing (as I'm not a lawyer) the injunction is from Judge Kennelly. There's a line about GW's consul holding items for destruction, but not destroying them until all appeals have been exhausted. Which I'm sure CH's team is still protesting to prevent any potential "oops you won appeal but... it got lost or eaten by puppies while it was in our possession" results.

Does an email notice qualify as proper legal notification? Or does it also have to be provided in confirmed physical copy ala court summons style?

 paulson games wrote:
I can confirm that Moskin has emailed numerous artists, I spoke firsthand with somebody who received a notice stating that he was required to hand over any materials for destruction and named off the offending items. Which is amusing because the guy who got this email didn't actually create or work on anything named in the list, (he did provide a model to CH, however it wasn't named in the list) which seems that it was just a blanket email sent to all of the artists. Since many of the items are still in appeal it indicates to me that he's fishing to see who gets spooked and hands over models or molds for destruction.

Seemed rather shady that GW/Moskin would be hitting up the individual artists to hand over materials which the court has finalized on yet. If I'm not mistaken it's up to CH to turn over those items and not the individuals (also assuming that the appeals didn't delay such an order)

I would love to see one of those letters he has sent out.

So:
1.) In USA, the court is not required to inform the persons who got an injunction?
2.) This injunction is "permanent" even before appeals are dealt with?

 Kroothawk wrote:
So:
1.) In USA, the court is not required to inform the persons who got an injunction?
2.) This injunction is "permanent" even before appeals are dealt with?

There's nothing sinister about the injunction Kroot. The Court informed the parties to which the injunction is binding, i.e. the parties named in the lawsuit.

A permanent injunction is simply not a preliminary injunction. It is not intended to be temporary. It would not be overturned absent an appeal, and was issued prior to the current appellants filing their appeals. So, unless a higher court overturns the injunction, it is permanent, and essentially enjoins Chapterhouse from continuing any infringing conduct.

Also, Chapterhouse's counsel is retaining the materials. There was a fight about this a little while ago.

I am curious about where GW got the contact information for the person(s) being contacted.

Jon, you are saying that a person you have heard from was not involved in the creation of any of the works found to infringe, right? If you don't mind my asking, was this individual involved in the creation of any works accused in the lawsuit? I'm trying to noodle around where this "list" GW has been emailing came from.

Also, paulson is saying that the injunction says that GW has to hold molds. As you said, that was corrected - is GW distributing an incorrect injunction? Possibly deliberately?