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.

 paulson games wrote:
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.

Just what materials would GW think they still have? Whenever I've done a sculpt I send it to the company that commissioned it. The keep the original. So what materials would the artists have to send?

I've been scanning various pages, but haven't really been able to find this figure:

What did this suit cost GW, in terms of dollars?

 puma713 wrote:
I've been scanning various pages, but haven't really been able to find this figure:

What did this suit cost GW, in terms of dollars?

You won't find that figure. You can only estimate. The only hard numbers come from GW's motion for trial costs (which was denied). But to put that in some context, GW paid 6 figures in printing just for the trial alone.

An attorney like Jonathan Moskin probably bills out at something north of $400/hour, and probably more than that. His associate, Jason Keener, could very well bill that much. There's no way to know what their billing rates to GW are, if they were working on a flat fee arrangement, if there were any incentives or bonuses, or anything about the exact nature of GW's financial relationship with Foley and Lardner.

However, it is reasonable to assume that GW has spent at least 7 figures all told thus far. A floor of 1 million dollars is pretty reasonable to assume, unless F&L was being really thrifty or giving GW a sweet deal. Thousands of hours were probably poured into the lawsuit over the years.

weeble1000 wrote:

 Kroothawk wrote:


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.

One of his models was included in the list of complaints and was included in the trial. However it's not named in the list of infringing items that was provided within in the injunction itself. The list within the injunction appears to be the same as the items that jury found infringing. (but I haven't gone over it with a fine tooth comb yet so I might be incorrect).


Which is so odd as to why he would receive a copy of it, our earlier theory is that Moskin group emailed everyone potentially involved. This appears it may not to be the case as MechanicalHorizon (who's also worked for CH) pointed out he didn't receive a mass email and I think some of his pieces may actually be on the list. (but not 100% sure) So that means that my contact was emailed accidentally or it's deliberate. Either way it's odd as the model isn't on the list, either the injunction one or the jury's list.

I'd post the contents of the injunction but I'm not sure if that would get anyone in any hot water as it apparently hasn't hit public record yet and I'm not sure what the legality of reposting this stuff is. There's no confidentialty or gag statement in it and it was given to him by opposing/hostile consul so I don't think it contains anything that's sensitive?



This was the header on it which might help locate it if/when it gets listed Case: 1:10-cv-08103 Document #: 465 Filed: 12/05/13 PageID #:25884 - 25887

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

The document states that all masters and other means for making the infringing items (molds) are to be surrendered to GW's counsel for destruction. And that they are to hold onto the listed items and not destroy them until the appeals process is complete.


How that lines up with the custody appeal from CH's counsel I'm not sure. This was dated dec 5th and there's been several motions in the meantime. I'm a bit confused by where the current state of affairs is at.

I think there is some justified concern as to the nature of the notice and in CH's case concern on turning over such items should their appeals succeed. In a perfect world GW would simply hold onto the items and return any that are found not to be infringing. But we've already seen Moskin sanctioned in court for the shoulder pad ownership claims, which certainly casts some doubt on what he says. One might question if he (or GW) would be reliable in handling the disputed items or if they'd meet with "accidents" or get "lost" in the process where they'd be unable to be returned after any appeals.

Not everyone who's worked for CH has followed the case, even for people who have been it's difficult to understand all the legal speech and what is or isn't decided at this point.

Moskin has already asked for (or demanded) access to company information that wasn't expressly required by the court. (for example asking for income and sales records before pre-trial even began) Part of his tactics so far have been to push for the defense to surrender info in advance of the defense (or artists) having legal representation in place. Basically using the target's general lack of legal knowledge against them in order to appear to have legal leverage and bluff his position in hopes they will comply with demands/requests when they are under no legal obligation to do.

 paulson games wrote:
The document states that all masters and other means for making the infringing items (molds) are to be surrendered to GW's counsel for destruction. And that they are to hold onto the listed items and not destroy them until the appeals process is complete.

See, this (to me) seems "bad". It goes against what CHS fought (and won) to get the order changed to. In essence, isn't Moskin lying again (although he'll claim the "original" was emailed by mistake)?

The order was not changed - the parties stipulated to a side deal where CHS would hang on to the moulds but the text of the injunction was not changed.

czakk wrote:
The order was not changed - the parties stipulated to a side deal where CHS would hang on to the moulds but the text of the injunction was not changed.

Exactly. It's just that the stipulation is in the record, as opposed to a less formal agreement between the parties, which is the way it would normally go. Which, coincidentally, is why we know about it at all.

Ah, gotcha.

Interesting that Moskin didn't bother including the stipulation when he sent out the emails. Wonder if he's going to hold on to anything sent him or if he's going to let CHS counsel hold them.

rigeld2 wrote:
Ah, gotcha.

Interesting that Moskin didn't bother including the stipulation when he sent out the emails. Wonder if he's going to hold on to anything sent him or if he's going to let CHS counsel hold them.

You know, that is an extremely interesting point you have there.

GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED,
Plaintiff - Appellee, Cross - Appellant,
v.
CHAPTERHOUSE STUDIOS LLC,
Defendant - Appellant, Cross - Appellee.

Originating Case Information:
District Court No: 1:10-cv-08103
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly

Pursuant to Circuit Rule 33, briefing in this consolidated appeal is SUSPENDED
pending further court order.

From Rule 33:

To enable counsel to devote their full attention to discussions of settlement, the briefing
schedule will be extended. An order setting forth the new briefing schedule will follow under
separate cover. The scheduling of a Rule 33 conference does not relieve the parties of their
obligation to comply in a timely manner with all other court filing requirements. Until Rule 33
proceedings are concluded, counsel are directed to send the Settlement Conference Office copies
of all papers they file with this Court.

i.e. Filing dates have been extended again under Rule 33, meaning extended due to ongoing settlement discussions. In this context, SUSPENDED basically means extended until the Court decides that the clock is running again.

Does this mean the court has decided they need to talk, or the lawyers have decided they want to talk. ?

 loki old fart wrote:
Does this mean the court has decided they need to talk, or the lawyers have decided they want to talk. ?

The Court already mandated settlement discussions, which is standard under 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Rule 33. A scheduled telephonic settlement conference already took place, following which the Court suspended the extant briefing schedule. Presumably, settlement discussions are ongoing, hence the additional extension of the briefing schedule, though whether this continuation was mandated by the Court or requested by the parties is impossible to know from the extant record.

You just don't know. All you know is that the briefing schedule has been suspended on the basis of Rule 33, which pertains to an obligatory prehearing settlement conference, from which one can infer that the parties remain engaged in prehearing settlement discussions. That's the extent to which one can make a reasonable inference. Anything else is reading tea leaves.

The key here is prehearing settlement conference. This is all intended to take place before the parties start arguing their appellate case to the Court. The briefing schedule outlines the dates on which the parties are required to submit their various arguments to the Court.

In other words, the game hasn't started yet. It was scheduled to start on X date and that date got pushed pack so the players could have a pre-game discussion. Now the start date has been suspended pending reinstatement by the Court which gives the parties more time for their pre-game discussion.

Mr. Moskin made the news everybody!

He was quoted in an article about the Dumb Starbucks. I think you'll find his views quite...interesting.

Jonathan Moskin, a partner who specializes in intellectual property at Foley & Lardner, said big companies are often better off letting the infringement slide—especially if action is likely to bring negative attention. “These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

He'd know all about that, wouldn't he...

weeble1000 wrote:
Mr. Moskin made the news everybody!

He was quoted in an article about the Dumb Starbucks. I think you'll find his views quite...interesting.

Jonathan Moskin, a partner who specializes in intellectual property at Foley & Lardner, said big companies are often better off letting the infringement slide—especially if action is likely to bring negative attention. “These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

lol. Personal experience? If these are his true thoughts on the matter then any doubts about why this case has been dragging on have been dispelled (as if there really were any).

Oh the irony!

Ya know, someone should absolutely make sure that gets sent into GW, to make sure they know both what they're doing wrong, and what their lawyer is saying to others rather than to them. We wouldn't want them to miss it

This just made my day. So that would imply that GW's counsel did suggest they leave CHS alone? That's how I read it, assuming Moskin had this same view before this suit was filed.

You know, his quote (assuming it's an honest opinion of his) reinforces the idea that I've had since the beginning of this lawsuit that GW doesn't really have a strong grasp of the big picture where third party bits manufacturers are concerned.

 Aerethan wrote:
This just made my day. So that would imply that GW's counsel did suggest they leave CHS alone? That's how I read it, assuming Moskin had this same view before this suit was filed.

That would only be an assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it interesting that Mr. Moskin chose to use the word "artist."

“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

This could be his new, adjusted, post-CHS lawsuit opinion...

weeble1000 wrote:

 Aerethan wrote:
This just made my day. So that would imply that GW's counsel did suggest they leave CHS alone? That's how I read it, assuming Moskin had this same view before this suit was filed.

That would only be an assumption.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I find it interesting that Mr. Moskin chose to use the word "artist."

“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

I agree it's an assumption, but if that is really his opinion over IP then, to me at least, it seems that he would have warned GW about his exact statement. Best case scenario they walked away the bully and tarnished an already fragile reputation.

weeble1000 wrote:

I find it interesting that Mr. Moskin chose to use the word "artist."

“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

Could it be because Dumb Starbucks is claiming to be "performance art"?

 d-usa wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

I find it interesting that Mr. Moskin chose to use the word "artist."

“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

Could it be because Dumb Starbucks is claiming to be "performance art"?

Possibly, sure. Nevertheless, he chose to use that word, and it fits real well with the bulk of GW's IP enforcement activities.

“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

Or, in the case of the Chaperhouse suit they’re both seen as beating up on an artist AND coming away with a black eye at the same time.

T

timd wrote:
“These are usually lose-lose propositions for brand owners,” he said. “If they win, they’re seen as beating up on an artist, and if they lose, then they come away with a black eye.”

Or, in the case of the Chaperhouse suit they’re both seen as beating up on an artist AND coming away with a black eye at the same time.

T

Is that a lose-lose-lose-lose proposition? Hey GW, your share price wants a word with you.

The "Spots The Space Marine" case was definitely a loss for GW. Although it didn't make the mainstream media, it got out of the wargames ghetto, and the coverage was completely negative towards GW.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The "Spots The Space Marine" case was definitely a loss for GW. Although it didn't make the mainstream media, it got out of the wargames ghetto, and the coverage was completely negative towards GW.

The problem is that everybody knows that the average consumer forgets that kind of stuff inside of a week...or in the case of GW, until the next new shiney comes out and everybody runs to buy it. Seriously, look at the Imperial Knights thread; half the people in there start out as hipsters "I haven't bought anything GW since Jesus walked to Galilea." and wind up "Squeee, I must gets mah precious!"

 agnosto wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The "Spots The Space Marine" case was definitely a loss for GW. Although it didn't make the mainstream media, it got out of the wargames ghetto, and the coverage was completely negative towards GW.

The problem is that everybody knows that the average consumer forgets that kind of stuff inside of a week...or in the case of GW, until the next new shiney comes out and everybody runs to buy it. Seriously, look at the Imperial Knights thread; half the people in there start out as hipsters "I haven't bought anything GW since Jesus walked to Galilea." and wind up "Squeee, I must gets mah precious!"

Except it does damage goodwill. The effects are like a drug with a long half life. It sticks around and builds up and builds up and builds up. We're still referencing Spots, for example, and even if the average customer 'forgets' about it, it remains a negative association with the brand. GW has been piling them up like cord wood, and it has definitely started to show.

Chapterhouse is also the gift that keeps on giving for GW. GW filed that case on December 21st 2010! It has been more than three years and the stink of it is still hanging around. The case is still going on. Even if people forget about it in a week, they keep getting reminders.

weeble1000 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

Except it does damage goodwill. The effects are like a drug with a long half life. It sticks around and builds up and builds up and builds up. We're still referencing Spots, for example, and even if the average customer 'forgets' about it, it remains a negative association with the brand. GW has been piling them up like cord wood, and it has definitely started to show.

Chapterhouse is also the gift that keeps on giving for GW. GW filed that case on December 21st 2010! It has been more than three years and the stink of it is still hanging around. The case is still going on. Even if people forget about it in a week, they keep getting reminders.

That's a good point and I agree but it's hard to pinpoint what causes the most damage, GW's predatory IP policies or their predatory pricing policies.