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.

 slowthar wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Spoiler:

 slowthar wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


This seems absolutely nonsensical to me.

Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?

The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.

Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.

That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.

Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?

Someone correct me but I think the difference is this: If you make a, lets say, Bloodbowl fanpage you would have every right to use the trademark if you mention that it's a fan made page and not officially related to the company or product. Or if you were to make your own team of humanoid owls for it you could say that they are Bloodbowl compatible, although not officially supported.

But you would not be able to say that you are selling official Bloodbowl supplements or in any way representing the company.

I think they are supposed to be used so consumer can be confident in their purchases (and their quality/origin) but often get abused by companies who think it gives them a monopoly on a word, for example to silence criticism.

 slowthar wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Spoiler:

 slowthar wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


This seems absolutely nonsensical to me.

Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?

The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.

Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.

That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.

Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?

Just because the Olympic Committee chooses to behave that way, and chooses to justify its behavior in that manner, doesn't mean that it is the only way to manage a trademark or that the Olympic Committee is obligated to behave that way.

Here is a helpful example.

One merely has to assert a right that is recognized. That's it. But the assertion should be confined to a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the alleged mark. A mark owner can even pay the expenses an alleged infringer incurrs from altering their use. In fact, that is a very productive way to handle suspected trademark infringement, especially when there is a significant disparity between the relative size and sophistication of the parties. A mark owner can also accept a token license fee and allow the use to continue. Both of those options are often cheaper, and more effective means of shoring up a trademark.

For example, asserting an unregistered mark on the phrase "grenade launcher" is a little disingenuous. No one should ever believe that they have a right to the word mark "grenade launcher" in the context of a weapon that launches a grenade.

Leveraging the inability of a suspected infringer to defend against an allegation in an attempt to artificaially expand the scope of a mark is bullying.

It simply does not follow that because the owner of a mark must take on the burden of policing use of a mark that all assertions of a mark are reasonable on their face or handled reasonably.

That's the important takeaway.

weeble1000 wrote:

 slowthar wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

Spoiler:

 slowthar wrote:

 Pacific wrote:


This seems absolutely nonsensical to me.

Can someone, please, explain to me what GW had to gain by stopping that other line of books being released, especially as it was something so dated (and now, obscure) from their own past? How could the new release have possibly hurt GW, either in terms of their company image, marketing or monetarily?

The gist of it is that trademarks have to be defended, and any allowed violations of that trademark weaken it. If you don't consistently enforce your claim to a trademark and allow others to use it you can legally lose that trademark.

Or something to that effect. I'm certainly not a lawyer, I've just seen this type of behavior in other industries. It is somewhat silly, and highly questionable, but there is a rationale behind it.

That's a common misconception. And it in no way excuses or justifies GW's behavior. It is up there with the top 5 copyright and trademark misconceptions that I have repeatedly corrected in this thread.

Really? I did just think of where I'd heard of this behavior before -- it's with the International Olympic Committee. They get all aggressive with anyone using the Olympics in their name or sales or anything even remotely associated with the Olympics and send them a C&D in the name of "well we have to protect our IP, so we have to shut down everyone no matter how innocent it is." Is that different somehow?

Just because the Olympic Committee chooses to behave that way, and chooses to justify its behavior in that manner, doesn't mean that it is the only way to manage a trademark or that the Olympic Committee is obligated to behave that way.

Here is a helpful example.

One merely has to assert a right that is recognized. That's it. But the assertion should be confined to a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the alleged mark. A mark owner can even pay the expenses an alleged infringer incurrs from altering their use. In fact, that is a very productive way to handle suspected trademark infringement, especially when there is a significant disparity between the relative size and sophistication of the parties. A mark owner can also accept a token license fee and allow the use to continue. Both of those options are often cheaper, and more effective means of shoring up a trademark.

For example, asserting an unregistered mark on the phrase "grenade launcher" is a little disingenuous. No one should ever believe that they have a right to the word mark "grenade launcher" in the context of a weapon that launches a grenade.

Leveraging the inability of a suspected infringer to defend against an allegation in an attempt to artificaially expand the scope of a mark is bullying.

It simply does not follow that because the owner of a mark must take on the burden of policing use of a mark that all assertions of a mark are reasonable on their face or handled reasonably.

That's the important takeaway.

Another way is to license the use of IP.

The Open Game License and d20 System Trademark License worked together to allow third party publishers to add value to WotC's D&D, without putting the D&D trademark at risk.

Publishers gained the use of WotC's IP, at the cost of needing to open their rules content to other OGL publishers - the result was a smorgasbord! Publishers borrowing from other publishers, and acknowledging where they had gotten the borrowed rules.

I loved the output of 3PP under the d20 license - it allowed amateurs back into the field.

With 4e WotC tried to impose the Game System License - which took rights away from the publisher, imposed more restrictions, yet offered very little in return

The GSL failed, and 4e failed. The OGL supported Pathfinder took D&D's place at the front of the pack.

Putting a robust license in place helped make 3.X the most successful game of its generation.

Having a flawed and one sided license helped kill 4e, and cost WotC its position as the publisher of the world's most popular RPG.

The Auld Grump

Personally I would love to see some third party creations, I think it would enlarge Game Works if they actually welcomed third party designers. How many of us mix other model kits and upgrades with our WH40K kits. I know there are the died hard kit builders that would scuff at the notion of seeing Game Works work with the third party creators, but how many Bit designers are there out there that run pretty damn close with War Hammer stuff and how many kit designers actually make there bits compatible with War Hammer? But all in all I think WH 40K Needs to lay down the sword and welcome some fresh new ideas to there family.

Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

sounds like their legal team

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

sounds like their legal team

Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

Davor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

sounds like their legal team

Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Davor wrote:


Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?

LOL! I think that would just about cover it. Worst possible client evvvvar... Pretty obvious the GW told their lawyers how to run the case and completely ignored their lawyers' advice.

timd wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Davor wrote:


Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

Just tell them that GW insisted on it despite legal advice and that they did their best in the face of ridiculous claims and incompetent witnesses on their own side?

LOL! I think that would just about cover it. Worst possible client evvvvar... Pretty obvious the GW told their lawyers how to run the case and completely ignored their lawyers' advice.

Except that the firm has a history ot taking up clients in similar cases - right down to sanctions for failure to disclose.

GW and their lawyers really deserved each other. (So did Chapterhouse and their lawyers - who went beyond the call of regular business to aid Chapterhouse pro bono.)

The Auld Grump

Chapterhouse Kickstarter Update wrote:As soon as these arrive I will ship them out. I know my post have been lacking, this is due to a number of things most of you have no interest in, one of them being legal which is relevant.

A tiny insight into what may be going on behind the scenes..

Davor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

sounds like their legal team

Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

To be fair to GW's US law firm, GW's case was weak at the beginning and got weaker as things went on.

It transpired, for example, that GW did not have any proof of owning copyright on a lot of the artwork they claimed as their copyright. GW had just assumed that "All of your base are belong to them", a trait they display frequently in these situations involving intellectual property.

The US law people played a weak hand as well as they could. (I won't speak about the monkey business about the shoulder pad design with the Copyright Office.)

Davor wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
Certainly, in this case, ignoring Chapterhouse would have been a better choice - folks need to buy GW models to use the Chapterhouse parts - and being able to customize your models actually makes the original models more attractive.

Does anybody know who had the brain fart storm at GW that led to this suit?

The Auld Grump

sounds like their legal team

Looks like the only winners are the legal team for getting millions $$$ to do the case. Then again, how can you say to your next clients you blew the GW case?

you don't really have to. Analogy: How do you sink an iraqi warship? By putting it on water. How do you sink GW's legal case? By taking it to court. GW had absolutely nothing to fly on but the methane collected from a cow via grocery bag. The real trick is how you explain to your clients that the person representing you is a hair's breadth away from being disbarred and investigated for criminal/negligent conduct in court/legal proceedings? That's the real trick right there.

@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.

@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.

I'm surprised GW still hasn't made an attempt to settle this thing out of court and make CHS go away. It won't save GW any money, but it would certainly save reputation.

 poda_t wrote:
I'm surprised GW still hasn't made an attempt to settle this thing out of court and make CHS go away. It won't save GW any money, but it would certainly save reputation.

I'm sure they're trying now, but CH isn't willing to budge on a few things that GW wants (or vice versa).

 poda_t wrote:


@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.

That works all well and good for, say, Pepsi taking "Popsi" to court (fakety fake fake, by the way), but doesn't really fly in this case, considering that any 3rd party 'knockoff' manufacturer that spends $100 putting up fliers has put more money into advertising than GW has in the last decade, and probably done more to raise awareness of the 'hobby' and GW itself, to boot!

Any and all 'front end work' really only would include the design of the models and creation of the story to go along with them, which, as we've also seen, hasn't really been done by GW either, but rather by the hundreds of Science Fiction authors and artists that came before them, which they ripped off.

 poda_t wrote:

@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.

I was not commenting on CHS and details of the lawsuit, just how I thought trademarks are supposed to work. But I think I remember someone saying that CHS named something that was too GW-ish like female Eldar Farseer or Eldar Farseer on Jetbike (or something, I don't know about the details) and if it was not labeled sufficiently for GW it might have beed a reason for them to sue (no matter what the law actually says).

Mario wrote:

 poda_t wrote:

@Mario
CHS never claimed they owned the ideas or anything. It may not have been sufficiently clear, and may not have had the 3 paragraphs stating all of the trademarks allegedly owned by GW, but it was reasonable to deduce that the product sold by CHS was intended to mate with GW's product line.

I was not commenting on CHS and details of the lawsuit, just how I thought trademarks are supposed to work. But I think I remember someone saying that CHS named something that was too GW-ish like female Eldar Farseer or Eldar Farseer on Jetbike (or something, I don't know about the details) and if it was not labeled sufficiently for GW it might have beed a reason for them to sue (no matter what the law actually says).

You are thinking of "Doomseer Ilyana." (I think that's how it was spelled)

The miniature was found to infringe...whatever Frankenstein amalgam of a claim GW was allowed to throw at it. But CHS was not found to infringe the asserted "Eldar Farseer" mark, if I recall the judgement correctly.

 poda_t wrote:
@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.

However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.

And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.

There is defending your IP, and then there is trying to bully the competition.

Care to guess which one I think GW was up to?

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 poda_t wrote:
@ Auld Grump
Realistically, you have to look at it from the other side. It's a slippery slope argument, but if you own a business, it is in your interest to act on this. If you allow "knockoff" add-on parts, how long until the demand at the third party firm results in that firm beginning manufacturing of "knockoff" models? At that point it starts cutting into your business, because you are the one doing the front-end work of getting customers, but then other businesses who offer similar products reap the back-end benefit with a limited advertising campaign. If you are the one that's invested hundreds of thousands and an entire career, you'd start getting annoyed. Notwithstanding your being annoyed, you should do the proper leg work for filing your patents and documenting everything from conception to sale.

However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.

And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.

There is defending your IP, and then there is trying to bully the competition.

Care to guess which one I think GW was up to?

The Auld Grump

Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas.
You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.

Steelmage99 wrote:
Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas.
You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.

So I can assume this happened twice in the trial?

Mario wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
Yep. Maybe the legal counsel should mention to GWs Head of Intellectual Properties that copyright doesn't apply to ideas, but expressions of those ideas.
You know.....so said Head of IP doesn't make an arse of himself regarding that very question...twice.

So I can assume this happened twice in the trial?

Yes. Absolutely. Some pages back you can find quotes.

It first happened in Merrett's initial deposition. He said, "This thing is a copy of our idea, that's the best I can come up with." He rampantly confused copyright and trademarks throughout the depo, but that was pretty darn explicit. Then he said the same thing in his second depo. Then he said basically the same thing at trial...more than once.

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 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.

That's my personal favorite.

There's also fun stuff like this, which is idiotic, but at least a logical argument:

[Merrett] I've lost particularly -- of particular interest to
us on this is -- it sounds crazy to us, but it's that detail
there which we think is sort of characteristic of a Games
Workshop Lasgun.
Q. The end of the muzzle?
A. The end of the muzzle, yeah. I'm pointing to the end of
the muzzle break on the Games Workshop Lasgun illustration.

And this, which departs from logic and edges its way into preposterous:

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

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

Which is really funny in the context of this testimony:

Q In the same conversation where you discussed
Chapterhouse's business and your concern about your licensees,
you acknowledged that there are things in Games Workshop's
range that you can't claim to be completely original. Do you
remember that?
A Yes.
Q And you said it would be insane and stupid of you to even
claim that?
A Yes. I'm not sure -- was that the language I used? Gosh.
Q I believe it was.
A Okay.

All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright:

Q And you have already testified that Games Workshop does
not claim to own a copyright on the idea of lizardmen,
correct?
A That is correct. Not on --
Well, we claim a copyright on our expression of the
Lizardman idea.
Q Correct. But you don't own the entire idea of Lizardmen?
A Nobody owns the entire idea of Lizardmen because that's --
the ideas are not ownable.
Q And that's because Lizardmen as an idea is wildly used in
science fiction and fantasy?
A No, it's not because of that. It's because it's the basic
rule of copyright, isn't it, that you can't own an idea but
you own the expression of the idea.
Q That's exactly right. You cannot own an idea in
copyright.

Which is interesting, because here Merrett testifies that GW's claim chart (which contains the sum total of GW's evidence apart from Merrett's testimony) GW doesn't actually include a work of art that Chapterhouse is alleged to have infringed, but chose instead to include an illustration that is indicative of the date at which Games Workshop began using an idea that Chapterhouse is accused of infringing.

Q But that feature is not something that Games Workshop has
used in a miniature that is identified?
A It is, yes. We just haven't got them on this claim chart,
but that's an illustration of the 1995 iteration of the idea.
Q And you had the opportunity to indicate in this claim
chart every product that you contend that Chapterhouse
infringed?
A Yes, I know we did. Well, the ones there that we should
have gotten in there. But the illustration is dated 1995
which is I think when we introduced the idea to the Imperial
Guard.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
However, also realistically, your legal counsel should tell you that trying to claim a trademark on fur and piles of skulls is unlikely to fly.

And the legal counsel should also mention the fact that aftermarket parts are legal - that trying to prevent a company from making compatible parts, and even advertising that they are compatible is not going to succeed.

I have no doubt that their lawyers told them both of these things and quite a few other similar things as well. What we have here seems to be a case of "The customer (GW) is always right." GW probably just waved these concerns away, figuring from their past experience that Chapterhouse would fold immediately, so none of these things would ever come up in a court of law. GW was just doing its normal bullying, running roughshod over any company that GW thought was infringing on its IP. I think their own law firm got bullied a bit by the GW board as well. would love to read some of the BOD's meeting minutes regarding the suit. I imagine the minutes would be as entertaining as some of the depositions and courtroom testimony....

T

All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright

Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright

Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.

The two are not mutually exclusive - indeed the state of being bored is conducive to not understanding.

I think that they gave GW some 'sympathy wins'.

I also think that a number of those will be stripped away in appeals.

The Auld Grump - so, Merrett became GW's IP guy because of attitude, not skill?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

All of this is even more interesting because in the second day of his testimony Mr. Merrett demonstrated his explicit knowledge that ideas were not protectable by copyright

Maybe his legal team corrected him over night, though why when he started the trial he held the same misconceptions from deposition. He was just floundering though, so weak was the GW case. How they won as much as they did baffles me. The inconsistent nature of the jury decisions makes me think they were bored or didn't understand.

This is a case of human nature at work.

If you give people two options, then they'll sit there and worry about which one is right forever. They'll consider, and side with someone.

If you give them two opposite choices, and one in the middle, people will almost always pick the one in the middle. It happens in surveys, opinion polls and loads of other places where you need people to have strong opinions about things they don't care about.

GW's lawyers, at the very last moment, offered the jury a middle road solution, and they took it because it was the middle of the road.

Thanks for the racap weeble1000. I browsed loosely through this thread and didn't know the exact depth of their ineptitude. Now it feels like they actually want to lose this case.

It's pretty clear from some of the awful testimony that GW never thought for one second "what do we do if they lawyer up and see this thing through?" It just never crossed their mind that chapterhouse having a competent defense was in the realm of possibility. They were an SEC team scheduling a D2 team to start the season as a warm up game. When they got to the stadium the Patriots lined up across from them and they weren't prepared. I almost feel bad for their legal team having to spend all this time trying to win an unwinnable case that relied on the other party backing down.

I wonder who told Kirby he'd spent an 'indecent' amount of money on the case. That doesn't seem like the word you'd volunteer for your own investor report. Unless he is so crazy he's actually proud of the current victories over CHS. It's hard to know with GW management.

It's possible he was using that because it was the word investors kept throwing in his face.

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's possible he was using that because it was the word investors kept throwing in his face.

That's my interpretation. Otherwise it is a really weird choice of phrasing. Saying "indecent amount of your money" is so potentially damaging that I don't think he would have said it if it hadn't already been said to him more than a few times.