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.

 Alpharius wrote:
Oh the irony!

The quote is indeed thick with it.... like foam on a dumb starbucks latte!

 agnosto wrote:
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.

It's a mix of both, of course, but if GW had done before what Moskin is advocating in that interview now, would GW be in as bad a position today?

What is the total value GW lost in the stock drop, for example? How much of that could be attributed to GW's goodwill tarnishing activities, such as its IP enforcement strategy? That's an interesting thought experiment.

And keep in mind of course that GW still has the opportunity to "let the infringement slide." So far GW has decided to forge ahead against Chapterhouse Studios.

Saldiven wrote:
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.

Ya that kinda happens when you hire people not for skill but for how well you respond to brainwashing.

 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.

Since when was the BBC not mainstream media?

 wowsmash wrote:
Ya that kinda happens when you hire people not for skill but for how well you respond to brainwashing.

Getting a job at GW has gotten do much harder over the years as well.

A friend of mine is applying for a FW sculpting position, you wouldn't believe the hoops they are making him jump through. I mean, he has to do freelance work to make money so he can eat. He can't spend hours each day for a month sculpting 4-5 models for a job he might not even get.

You'd think they would be able to look at a sculptors portfolio of work and be able to judge their sculpting ability from that, especially if those sculpts had been put into production for sale. You'd be able to have the physical model on your desk to look at to say "Wow, this is a great sculpt".

At least in the programming world that's what we do. I can't recall a single instance of us asking a prospective employee to write a few programs so we can see if he's good enough. We'll look at his resume and existing projects theyve worked on to see if they have the necessary qualifications.

I recall reading an article about how there is an increased "ego" or "arrogance" with companies that makes them feel they need the "best and brightest" so their hiring practices get overly strict. In reality they wind up turning away perfectly good potential staff because they set the bar at such a high level. Because of that they think they are hiring "Only the best of the best" when in reality they are discouraging people who are qualified and have the talent from even applying.

The article was written about Apple and Microsoft, but it could apply to GW as well.

 Dysartes 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.

Since when was the BBC not mainstream media?

I am unable to speak of things of which I am unconscious. AFAIK it wasn't on the BBC, however if it was, the BBC is of course mainstream media.

Perhaps you might provide a link?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps you might provide a link?

Google in 2 seconds, first link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

Edit: second link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Edit, edit: Don't worry czakk and everyone else I'm only good for one ninja a year.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

[edit] Beaten to the punch.

And other news...

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/2646002/

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/feb/07/superheroes-space-marines-lawyers-copyright

 Consul Scipio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps you might provide a link?

Google in 2 seconds, first link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

Edit: second link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Edit, edit: Don't worry czakk and everyone else I'm only good for one ninja a year.

Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, proof that GW have crapped in their nest in public.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Consul Scipio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps you might provide a link?

Google in 2 seconds, first link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

Edit: second link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Edit, edit: Don't worry czakk and everyone else I'm only good for one ninja a year.

Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, proof that GW have crapped in their nest in public.

Their long refusal to communicate with any media serves them well.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Consul Scipio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps you might provide a link?

Google in 2 seconds, first link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490

Edit: second link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003

Edit, edit: Don't worry czakk and everyone else I'm only good for one ninja a year.

Thank you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, proof that GW have crapped in their nest in public.

Just to add...

http://mcah.wikia.com/wiki/Spots_vs_Games_Workshop

There are a lot of other blog posts, forum discussions and a solid couple weeks of Tweets, but that page has a good collection of articles from various news sources of various levels of mainstream weight.

Considering GWs lack of advertising, well, they managed to shoot their goodwill squarely in the foot.

Also of note, GWs actions are now immortalized on their Wikipedia page. Might not seem like much, but it will show up when anyone goes to everyone's favorite reference site from now on.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Consul Scipio wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Perhaps you might provide a link?

Google in 2 seconds, first link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21409490
Edit: second link http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21380003
Edit, edit: Don't worry czakk and everyone else I'm only good for one ninja a year.

Thank you.]
So, proof that GW have crapped in their nest in public.

It takes more than an obscure nerd blog to create a gak storm so strong that GW is chasen from facebook, never to return

Most of us agree that GW have royally screwed up their IP enforcement activities, but we are getting off the main topic of the Chapter House case.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Most of us agree that GW have royally screwed up their IP enforcement activities, but we are getting off the main topic of the Chapter House case.

Okay, let's talk about how GW has royally screwed up this lawsuit

I lost touch with this a while ago, did'nt realise it was still rumbling on, would anyone mind bringing me up to speed? (i got as far as GW won some things and lost some, although if anyone is willing to give me an overview of where they won/lost that would also be appreciated). Thanks

GW lost the substantial majority, many claims didn't get to jury.

CHS did have to pay damages, but ran a Kickstarter and likely made enough.

Both sides have filed for appeal.

CHS continue to receive pro bono representation, not only from the original law firm, but additionally from another firm with a strong track record in IP law, and an individual from that firm who appears to be somewhat of an IP law ninja.

http://www.lounge.belloflostsouls.net/showthread.php?33351-LEGALWATCH-Games-Workshop-vs-Chapterhouse-Verdict
I think this is the best break down of who won what that doesn't involve trudging back though the past 50 pages of this thread.

The important part now though is that both sides are contesting quite a lot (pretty much everything between them?) in appeals, except that GW seem to be going into the appeals with little more than the same brawn before brain mentality that started the case while CH have brought on some apparently very well respected IP lawyers who specialize in appeals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, I just thought I should point out this part of the BoLS pos:

some guy on BoLS wrote:Thoughts and Implications:
It's looking like however CHS as an entity comes out of this ruling, the implications for the 3rd party industry are profound.

-The ruling of no infringement for the use of the underlying shape and size of GW shoulderpads is now on the legal record.
-Possibly more important is not guilty verdicts on the use of GW trademarks and terms on the CHS website.
-While certain CHS products themselves may disappear from the Earth in the aftermath of this case, it looks like the verdict may have provided a clear blueprint for the 3rd party accessory bits market. One that allows legal use of certain GW trademarks and terms in a way that goes way beyond what Nottingham themselves ever wished to allow.

Again this has been discussed but that was a while back now.
The really important part of the ruling so far are these. Assuming it doesn't change in appeals there seem to be some very clearly defined rules now for what 3rd party manufactures can do.

GW went into the case trying to send a clear message of 'try to make money off our stuff and we'll ruin you', but the verdict, as it currently stands, seems to allow CH (and anyone else) to create shoulderpads and market them as 'shoulderpads compatible with GW space marines'.

Thanks jono and Az
so now both sides are disputing , and essentially we wait another age to see where this goes ?

 Sirius42 wrote:
Thanks jono and Az
so now both sides are disputing , and essentially we wait another age to see where this goes ?

I'm not a lawyer but from what people where saying it sounds like it won't, all the facts are known, all the arguments made, all that is needed now is for some other judges to go in and see if any calls where made that didn't make sense or if the jury said one thing while the law actually said something different.

The long part is over, we just need someone to check over it all.

 prplehippo wrote:

A friend of mine is applying for a FW sculpting position, you wouldn't believe the hoops they are making him jump through. I mean, he has to do freelance work to make money so he can eat. He can't spend hours each day for a month sculpting 4-5 models for a job he might not even get.

You'd think they would be able to look at a sculptors portfolio of work and be able to judge their sculpting ability from that, especially if those sculpts had been put into production for sale. You'd be able to have the physical model on your desk to look at to say "Wow, this is a great sculpt".

I hate to point this out, but GW is most likely scamming him. I dunno if anyone else has noticed this, but GW has a little clause that states that they are the sole owner of all materials submitted to them and that you surrender all IP rights to them by submitting them. Effectively, he's giving them four or five free sculpts per month without them having to pay him.

 azreal13 wrote:
...and an individual from that firm who appears to be somewhat of an IP law ninja.

To be honest I thought of this case when I saw a scene in a recent Marvel comic with a hoard of faceless, nameless lawyer representing a major corproatoon.. and in the other corner is Jennifer Walters, Esq, aka She Hulk.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 prplehippo wrote:

A friend of mine is applying for a FW sculpting position, you wouldn't believe the hoops they are making him jump through. I mean, he has to do freelance work to make money so he can eat. He can't spend hours each day for a month sculpting 4-5 models for a job he might not even get.

You'd think they would be able to look at a sculptors portfolio of work and be able to judge their sculpting ability from that, especially if those sculpts had been put into production for sale. You'd be able to have the physical model on your desk to look at to say "Wow, this is a great sculpt".

I hate to point this out, but GW is most likely scamming him. I dunno if anyone else has noticed this, but GW has a little clause that states that they are the sole owner of all materials submitted to them and that you surrender all IP rights to them by submitting them. Effectively, he's giving them four or five free sculpts per month without them having to pay him.

Considering GW/FW have slews of "test sculpts" from people that they refuse to release, I don't think you're right.

That nonsense has been going around since their painting contest. They had a legal statement that submitting will grand them a non-exclusive license to use your image for promotional purposes.

So people have been saying that "GW owns everything you submit to them" even though the same legal stuff also made it clear that you retain complete ownership of the pictures.

 d-usa wrote:
That nonsense has been going around since their painting contest. They had a legal statement that submitting will grand them a non-exclusive license to use your image for promotional purposes.

So people have been saying that "GW owns everything you submit to them" even though the same legal stuff also made it clear that you retain complete ownership of the pictures.

Exactly, expecting a prospective artist to spend hours creating something solely for the purpose of trying to gain employment with you, under no assurances they'll get it, has its own problems, but this isn't it.

But this is veering dangerously OT....

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sirius42 wrote:
Thanks jono and Az
so now both sides are disputing , and essentially we wait another age to see where this goes ?

I'm not a lawyer but from what people where saying it sounds like it won't, all the facts are known, all the arguments made, all that is needed now is for some other judges to go in and see if any calls where made that didn't make sense or if the jury said one thing while the law actually said something different.

The long part is over, we just need someone to check over it all.

Appeals are comparatively quick. The appeal is on hold right now while the parties are engaged in mandatory settlement discussions with a court-appointed mediator. In the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals these mandatory mediated conferences are standard upon filing an appeal.

To be a little bit more precise, the facts are known, but the appellate arguments have not been made yet. Both parties are wedded to the trial record in an appeal, so you skip the lengthy discovery process. If it didn't come into the trial, it isn't an issue on appeal. The closest you get to something outside the scope of the trial itself would be a reversible error argument regarding the Court's decision to keep something out of the trial, e.g. the trial judge erred in granting X, Y, Z motions in limine, or the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment.

What you do on appeal is take the trial record to the appellate court and argue for why something should be reversed or remanded for a new trial. Those arguments will be made in the form of back and forth briefs and probably some form of oral argument on a schedule that is set by the Court of Appeals. Appellate work tends to be confined to research and the writing of briefs, but what is important about an appeal is that is sets stronger precedent, and that is what will be of principle interest to the industry in this case.

When it comes to appellate rulings, the decisions of one circuit court are not binding on another circuit court, but are generally given a great deal of weight. When it comes to copyright and trademark law, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has a strong record, and decisions that come down from the 7th Circuit regarding copyright and trademark law are generally given more weight. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is the one that recently made a ruling upholding a Fair Use dismissal in the South Park case. It is an exciting venue for an appeal, not only because of the deference the 7th Circuit is given regarding copyright and trademark law, but also because the 7th Circuit contains several judges that take intellectual property law very seriously. Without a doubt, this case will get keen attention from the 7th Circuit which will appreciate the broader implications of the lawsuit.

The next most exciting thing to wait for is finding out which three judges will be on the panel.

weeble1000 wrote:


To be a little bit more precise, the facts are known, but the appellate arguments have not been made yet. Both parties are wedded to the trial record in an appeal, so you skip the lengthy discovery process. If it didn't come into the trial, it isn't an issue on appeal. The closest you get to something outside the scope of the trial itself would be a reversible error argument regarding the Court's decision to keep something out of the trial, e.g. the trial judge erred in granting X, Y, Z motions in limine, or the trial judge erred in granting summary judgment.
.

Do you think we could see something like this come up considering some of the questionable calls the trial judge made?


Thanks for the summary of the process by the way.

Out of curiosity (and I can't remember) did the fact that GW was sending letters to artists asking for them to sign over rights during the trial come up during the trial?

rigeld2 wrote:
Out of curiosity (and I can't remember) did the fact that GW was sending letters to artists asking for them to sign over rights during the trial come up during the trial?

I thought with a bit of bluster from Moskin they managed to get it removed from trial along with their deceit over the patent office applications.

rigeld2 wrote:
Out of curiosity (and I can't remember) did the fact that GW was sending letters to artists asking for them to sign over rights during the trial come up during the trial?

Yes. In fact, it came up specifically with regard to Gary Chalk, whose Mantis Warriors artwork GW had asserted against Chapterhouse Studios. Chapterhouse had a discovery request pertaining to the contact information GW had for any of the artists of the asserted works of art. GW provided none, claiming that it did not have any such contact information.

Chapterhouse Studios performed an independent investigation in order to contact such artists. One such artist was Gary Chalk. When contacted, Gary Chalk swore an affadavit not only asserting that he had never signed over his rights to GW, but that he was not in fact an employee of GW as Alan Merrett had testified, but was rather an independent contractor. Further, he provided communications (via both mail and email) that both Gill Stevenson and Alan Merrett had with him, specifically concerning the asserted Mantis Warriors artwork and asking him to sign a document certifying that he had in fact signed over his rights. These contacts occurred prior to GW telling Chapterhouse Studios that it did not have contact information for Gary Chalk.

Gary Chalk did not sign this instrument and attached a copy of said communications to his affidavit.

Games Workshop dropped the Mantis Warrior claim and the Court denied Chapterhouse's motion to dismiss and for sanctions, choosing instead to dismiss the claim with prejudice.

Good job on that one Judge Matthew F. Kennelly. Later, Jonathan E. Moskin was sanctioned for withholding discoverable communications, a fact which Chapterhouse had to uncover, again, with its own independent investigation. Judge Kennelly awarded sanctions limited to the fees Chapterhouse paid to have the documents expedited as part of its investigation.

This is from the American Bar Association Model Rules for Imposing Disciplinary Action (Rule 10 commentary) if you want to know how the American legal profession views sanctions. Quoted below is a list of aggravating factors to consider when imposing a sanction:

“The following lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances are found in Standard 9. Aggravating factors include: prior disciplinary offenses; dishonest or selfish motive; a pattern of misconduct; multiple offenses; bad faith obstruction of the disciplinary proceeding by intentionally failing to comply with rules or orders of the disciplinary agency; submission of false evidence, false statements or other deceptive practices during disciplinary process; refusal to acknowledge wrongful nature of conduct; vulnerability of victim; substantial experience in the practice of law; and indifference to making restitution.”

 d-usa wrote:
That nonsense has been going around since their painting contest. They had a legal statement that submitting will grand them a non-exclusive license to use your image for promotional purposes.

So people have been saying that "GW owns everything you submit to them" even though the same legal stuff also made it clear that you retain complete ownership of the pictures.

I know this is starting to get ot, but this is GW current submission policy taken directly from GW.

Games Workshop Submissions Policy wrote:

For legal reasons we will only accept your submission if you agree to assign all intellectual property rights in it to us. This means that by making a submission you automatically give Games Workshop ownership and exclusive rights to use your submission for any purpose. It is important that you are comfortable with this before making a submission to us. Please do not make a submission if you do not agree to this.

FFG had change the rules to one of their contests AFTER submissions were in because anything you submit to FFG for a GW licensed product is also property of GW.