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.

Thanks weeble some of these stuff would make good stuff for Boston Legal or similar TV-shows.

I am sure GW think the cats is in the bag

czakk wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Jason Keener. Keener should have been lead counsel. He is a much better trial lawyer.

He appears to have made partner at F&L - so his hard work was rewarded.

Oh, well good for Keener.

Wow, that's pitiful on GW's part. I think we've read a lot of this stuff before, but it's fun to go back occasionally. I was curious(but not curious enough to look myself), but was the Malantai Female Farseer ever brought into the trial? I think it may have actually been released after the lawsuit was filed if I remember correctly, so I don't believe it was.

That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

Totally.

There are many clear influences from traditional Chinese and Japanese social and military history in various aspects of the Tau fluff and physical design.

It was in the designer's notes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 loki old fart wrote:
Makes you wonder how they won as many as they did.

There are several reasons for that.

The case involved a huge number of accusations involving either copyright or trademarks, which are two separate and complex pieces of IP law that are liable to confuse a jury.

There was an element of throwing so much mud at the wall that some of it had stick, if only because the huge amount that did not stick, piled up anyway.

The judge was pretty slack which somewhat favoured GW, because many elements of their case were very slack as we have seen in the testimony excerpts and in other places, such as the correspondence between Moskin and the US Copyright office regarding the shoulder pad design.

You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett. The guy is clearly so far out of his depth here it is pitiful. The guy is a gamer who has been with Citadel and GW since the very early days. He knows gaming, he knows the GW fluff. But he knows diddly squat (or so it would appear from these extracts) about how the real world works. He has been living in the dark of the GW bunker for so long he's totally lost the plot. Which is a shame as for a long time I would have painted him as one of the good guys - you know the old "games by gamers" mentality that used to be there. Here though you seem to see he desperately trying to be all corporate and professional, and failing miserably. If as "Head of IP" he'd just stuck to being a gamer, and left off trying to bully other gamers with a methodology and a rationale he clearly doesn't understand, then things might have worked out a lot better for GW than they have done.

Krazy, if by slack you mean "sanctionable violation of the rules of evidence" then sure, GW's case was 'slack'.

If by slack you mean "admitted after three years of litigation and a week-long trial that they had, the entire time, brought no evidence" then sure, it was slack.

If by slack you mean "ruling that a drawing of a white skull on a black background appearing only once on page 88 of a book is a valid trademark in use in commerce" then yes, the court's rulings were 'slack'.

If by slack you mean "allowing a plaintiff to create deliberately confusing demonstratives by willfully infringing the defendant's copyrighted artwork" then it is fair to call Judge Kennelly's rulings 'slack'.

I get what you meant. I just think "slack" is a very generous word.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Osbad wrote:
You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett.

Don't. He is a true believer. He did not think that he was out of his depth. He thought anyone who didn't agree with him, including his lawyers, was stupid. He thought that having to go to America to testify in a case that was so obviously in GW's favor was a massive inconvenience. He thought that Nick Villacci was a criminal punk.

I'll dig it up, but somewhere in that cross examination Merrett is really insulting to Chapterhouse's counsel, Julianne Hartzell.

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

The guy was lying in court then. Contradicted by his own company's magazine.

weeble1000 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Osbad wrote:
You know, I'm really starting to feel sorry for Merrett.

Don't. He is a true believer. He did not think that he was out of his depth. He thought anyone who didn't agree with him, including his lawyers, was stupid. He thought that having to go to America to testify in a case that was so obviously in GW's favor was a massive inconvenience. He thought that Nick Villacci was a criminal punk.

I'll dig it up, but somewhere in that cross examination Merrett is really insulting to Chapterhouse's counsel, Julianne Hartzell.

Fair comment! I guess age gets us all in the end. I wonder what would have happened if back in the hippy-dippy times of the early 80's when everything was exciting, and Merrett was getting his gaming mojo on with the likes of Priestley and co., playing "Trolls in the Pantry", he'd have realised all this was in store for him in the future? Perhaps they'd have created a game about it and distributed it free as a hand-typed photocopy with every order over 2s/6d?(reference to UK's pre-decimal currency... humour explained for the younger, and colonial readers...) "Our latest game: "The Chapterhouse Protocol: Fight the machinations of the Evil Corporation as a Resin-casting Freedom Fighter. Stick it to Da Man in the Court Rooms of the 21st Century as the Alien Beast wriggles and writhes on the thrusting daggers of your Legal Counsel." It would have made an engaging little diversion back then! Would have made Paranoia look positively utopian!

How are the mighty fallen!

On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

This is the calibre of the guys deciding that the best way to get the company out of its financial hole is to release 7th edition 2.5 years early! What a bunch of numpties!

 Osbad wrote:
On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

Remember, attitude and not skills is the key to success at GW and to GW being successful (paraphrased from either the website or financial report).

One would think that the Corporate IP Manager would know a few things like:
1. The difference between words like "Copyright", "Trademark" and "Idea".
2. The foundational creative machinations behind one of the company's line of miniatures.

A reasonable person would expect someone in charge of the company's IP to know something about the IP....crazy world.

 Baragash wrote:

 Osbad wrote:
On a more serious note, I know verbatim transcripts of oral testimony doesn't always do the speaker justice, but he really seems to struggle to explain his ideas. Maybe he was as tired as he claimed, or maybe he just doesn't have a clue about the difference between the terms "inspired by", "copyright", "trademark" and "idea". Clearly he has absolutely no understanding of what he was trying to defend, which by this stage in the proceedings (how many years down the line?) potentially shows a huge lack of competence high up in their management structure.

Remember, attitude and not skills is the key to success at GW and to GW being successful (paraphrased from either the website or financial report).

I suspect that Merrett was a really difficult witness to prep. If you look at his depo testimony, he says he only spoke to his counsel for a couple of hours prior to the depo, or something like that. Further, he was deposed on three separate occasions and made the same stupid mistakes in each depo even though he would have had plenty of time in between to prep with his counsel. He made those same stupid mistakes at trial.

It is possible that Merrett simply thought that he knew what he was doing; that he did not need to be prepped. In such a case he would have been recklessly self-deluded. As is quite apparent, Merrett did not know what he was talking about. But that little narrative at the end of his direct testimony was clearly rehearsed. He practiced that, probably memorized it. Whether that was his idea or his counsel's idea is anyone's guess. But that is what he worked on; how to sound self-righteously indignant.

Q. Is there any other particular means whereby word of mouth
spreads?
A. Well, obviously, the Internet is the big one today and
social media, but the Internet is probably the biggest single
way that our kind of nerdy, geeky customers would communicate
with each other. And actually, you can't -- if you were to go
online and type Games Workshop, you would find a myriad of
forums and blogs and websites of our fans goobering about our
stuff, basically.

See...

Can you describe some of these forums, the names of
them?
A. Oh, Lord. Well, off the top of my list, one's like Dakka
Dakka, Bell of Lost Souls, Warseer, Heresy Online, Librarium
Online, Lustria Online, the Warhammer Forum. I mean, they're
endless. There are literally hundreds and hundreds of websites.

Q. And what happens at a Games Day?
A. Lots of Games Workshop fans turn up in a big hall, and they
get very, very, very excited about talking to the guys that make
the stuff and seeing exhibits and participating in games and
doing some fun things. They get to paint miniatures. They get
to build scenery. And they get to do their favorite hobby
activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which,
of course, is very good for us as business.

A. Oh, I'm sorry. This is the cover of the Dark Eldar Codex.
And you can see in the center of the picture is this very
macabre character, who's a kind of like a -- again, sort of kind
of a little bit like a wizard, but the Dark Eldar are spiky and
evil, and they have very black thoughts about the world.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
And you can see that's reflected in the shapes of the (Tau)
vehicles. They have a much more -- well, I can't explain --
sort of modern flavor to them and things that are redolent of
sort of a slightly more traditional science fictiony feel.
That's the best way I can put it, really.

But they don't reference anything other than the imaginations of the artists, right? What exactly makes them "redolent of more traditional science fiction? So there's science fiction that pre-dates GW, yes? That your artists drew on to create the Tau, yes? But they were instructed, by you, to not look at anything other than what GW had created, yes? And that's how you know they didn't take anything from stuff that is in the public domain, yes? That's your testimony Mr. Merrett? So, in other words, all you know is that you told them not to use anything else and that, presumably by sheer coincidence, the Tau wound up similar to traditional science fiction, a similarity that you yourself can identify, although you can't explain what makes the Tau unique other than that you told them to make something unique...

our kind of nerdy, geeky customers

our fans goobering about our stuff, basically.

And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.

With all this contempt for the customer, this really is TSR all over again.

Wow that venom for their customers. Geeky nerds goobering over their stuff and excited to buy GW products. Although to be fair I don't think that the "nerdy, geeky customers" part is meant to be insulting, I think it's used more like "tech-savvy".

Throne of the Emperor!

That part needs to be plastered everywhere just to illustrate to even the densest fanboy that GW doesn't care about what we want as long as the suckers keep forking over the cash.

 Absolutionis wrote:

our kind of nerdy, geeky customers

our fans goobering about our stuff, basically.

And they get to do their favorite hobby activity, which is buy some product from Games Workshop, which, of course, is very good for us as business.

With all this contempt for the customer, this really is TSR all over again.

Yeeeshh, I was reading through that and all I could think was "really? THAT is how you represent your customers?" How GW got to this point of mocking the very people who buy their models still surprises me, even now.

WayneTheGame wrote:
Wow that venom for their customers. Geeky nerds goobering over their stuff and excited to buy GW products. Although to be fair I don't think that the "nerdy, geeky customers" part is meant to be insulting, I think it's used more like "tech-savvy".

Throne of the Emperor!

That part needs to be plastered everywhere just to illustrate to even the densest fanboy that GW doesn't care about what we want as long as the suckers keep forking over the cash.

Yeah, I haven't seen many GW defenders perusing this thread. The evidence here is so significant that there isn't even an argument to be made *IN* GW's favor.

weeble1000 wrote:
[Moskin] Let's call up Plaintiff's Exhibit 1020, Page 38. In your testimony today, you said that you were inspired by something called a Cthulhu and a brain bug. Do you recall that?
A. Yes.
Q. In making your Ymgarl model heads.
A. Yes.
Q. And can you show me anywhere on this page where you refer to your Ymgarl model heads as Cthulhu or brain bugs?A. Right there, sir.

Note that the answer said plaintiff attorney was looking for there was "No."

The secrets of asking questions during a debate:
1. Never ask a question to which you do not already know the answer.

2. Never ask a question that has an answer that does not support your position.

Questions asked in a debate are not for the purpose of fact finding, they are to advance your position and/or impede the advancement of your opponent.

Moskin... should have looked more carefully before referencing the website....

He apparently thought that he knew the answer, and instead advanced his opponent's position.

Mind you, I have treasured memories of the debates between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter when they were each running for president.

Where each seemed to be asking questions because they wanted to know the answers - each giving ground to the other. And each came across as nice guys, despite the debate. (But then, I also do not think that Gerald Ford expected to have any real chance of winning the election - he was a sacrifice. (But also, I think, he was just a nice guy.))

The Auld Grump

And his questioning ended real quick after that. Way to end on a high note Moskin.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Trasvi wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
That stuff about the Tau not being referenced from anything else was pretty hilarious.

I remember the White Dwarf when Tau were first released, they explicitly talked about getting eastern/anime influences to make a Gundam-style army.

The guy was lying in court then. Contradicted by his own company's magazine.

To be fair, it wasn't only inspired by Anime:



(Brataccas, by Psygnosis, 1986)

Given that they admit there's no demonstrable effect by CHS on GW sales, that they admit that GW hasn't changed pricing structure or anything resulting from CHS, how exactly did they claim and win damages?

essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

I suppose, seems like there was poor justification for the numbers GW cane out with.

I can't believe Merritt tried to claim the Tau were completely original. In the last year or so they've just released a huge Gundam robot for Tau for feths sakes. Apparently this was all creatively invented and designers didn't look at robot pictures or anything else, despite the obvious genre Tau was buying into.

9 Q So the designers of the Tau race did not draw inspiration
10 from the look -- for the look of the Tau from within Games
11 Workshop?

12 A That's correct. They looked for it inside their own
13 imaginations.

14 Q You also testified that you wanted to look very sci-fi,
15 correct?

And the Tau were created in 2011? Is that your testimony?

No. Tau were created in 2000 and released in 2001.

You testified that the Tau race presented a departure in
22 universe -- or within the Warhammer 40K universe, you've
23 already testified, correct?

Yes, probably.

And by sci-fi you were referring to science fiction?

As popularly understood, yes.

And specifically science fiction created by third parties?

No, I didn't say that.

It was not any science fiction that existed within the Tau

A Yes. It is perfectly possible for us to invent something
25 from scratch, you know. That's our stock in trade. That's what we do for a living.

Q So you don't believe that any external robots were
3 considered by any designer of any Tau product?

Not to my knowledge, no.

But do you have knowledge what they referred to?

Well, they didn't refer to anything. What we did is we
project brainstormed concepts of -- for the Tau idea.

And none of them had ever seen a robot?

Well, that's preposterous to suggest, isn't it?

It is.

So the designers could have drawn inspiration from
existing robots?

A They could have done. They could have drawn inspiration from the clouds in the sky.

17 Q So you can't say which elements of the Tau race were
18 original?

19 A To the best of my knowledge, all the elements of the Tau
20 race -- of the Tau mortals were original.

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

 Triton wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

Oh my goodness, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I believe the word he was looking for was "octopus-like".

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Triton wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Q. So, there's no copyright claim as to product 43?
A. I don't know. Yes. No. I'm sorry. I don't know what --
I'm tired. I'm not sure what I'm thinking here at the moment.
What I'm thinking is actually they're octopussy -- octopussy
kind of tentacle heads, but it's not a literal copy.

I wonder if that's the first time the word "octopussy" has been used in a court of law.

Oh my goodness, I'm laughing so hard I'm crying. I believe the word he was looking for was "octopus-like".

Cephalopodean

It is insulting to the meanest intelligence to state that a group of creative designers for SF artwork in the 21st century should never have looked at anything at all.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It is insulting to the meanest intelligence to state that a group of creative designers for SF artwork in the 21st century should never have looked at anything at all.

Hopefully the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will feel the same way and rule that Merrett provide no evidence of protected expression.

weeble1000 wrote:
essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

Given that this is being appealed, did CHS already have to pay this, or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process?

It's odd that they would award the full amount while finding well under half the claims in GW's favor (and thus less than half of the supposedly infringing sales of CHS products?).

 RiTides wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
essentially unjust enrichment. defendant's profits from the sale of infringing materials, which GW calculated to$25,000.00 for all alleged acts of infringement. The jury awarded $25,000.00 but only found about 40% of the claims in favor of GW.

Given that this is being appealed, did CHS already have to pay this, or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeals process?

It's odd that they would award the full amount while finding well under half the claims in GW's favor (and thus less than half of the supposedly infringing sales of CHS products?).

Normally a defendant can get a bond. The normal percentage carries by venue, but it is usually something like 1-3%. Sometimes a defendant will have to put the full amount in escrow. Verdicts get flipped and/or remanded all the time.

In particularly bad awards it can be a problem, even if the appeal issues are rock solid. But a $25,000 judgement isn't a huge deal. Probably not hard to get a bond on that.

Isn't the reason it was awarded because before the trial GW where throwing around figures in the hundreds of thousands (effectively all the profit CH ever made) then suddenly changed their tune in the closing arguments and telling the jury they where trying to be reasonable?