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.

So essentially GW won in the end?. Do we at least get to keep the rulings about their "supposed ip" or are those also made none existent with the settlement?.

 Pacific wrote:
So.. reading between the lines here, am I correct in assuming that the implications are that we will not hear the true outcome of this case, and that GW will now be free to re-align its sights on other 3rd party bit producers? i.e. the likes of Maxmini now have to start expecting legal notices?

My impression from this whole nasty business is that the pro bono work for the legal defence of Chapterhouse was intended to draw a line in the sand in front of GW's voracious legal claims, and that was why it was important that they were defeated. What will be the upshot of all of that, looking beyond Chapterhouse's specific circumstances?

Well, it did draw a line in the sand on a a great number of things. There is an actual court decision on what GW currently actually owns. The appeals could have gone either way but the assumption is that the appellate court would have overturned a number of rulings that went against CHS, if not all of them, and thus further defined what 3rd party bit makers can do in the U.S.


Even in danger of losing a house, I would have continued fighting but I'm boneheaded like that and there is no way that I will second-guess Nick's decisions for himself and his family; I hope that he can continue in business but looking at Paulson Games' decline, I think we can see the writing on a wall for what occurs with a GW brokered settlement.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So basically...Gamesworkshop won.

Not entirely. The previous findings regarding what GW actually does and does not own are still in effect, right?

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

Just in case this gets missed on the last page.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So basically...Gamesworkshop won.

Not entirely. The previous findings regarding what GW actually does and does not own are still in effect, right?

I think this is paramount, otherwise at the end of the day, GWs tactics worked.

 Casey's Law wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

Just in case this gets missed on the last page.

Unless someone blabs we won't find out what the settlement was. Maybe, maybe something might come up in a financial report, but even that would just end up being a wild guess at the end of the day. Unless you were wanting to find something else out?

The previous rulings stand.

The settlement only applied to the fine against CHS. It is all on the books now.

GW had no cause to settle unless they thought they were going to lose. And we all know that GW was never going to quit while they were ahead. They don't have it in them.

In addition to the NDA the settlement probably also includes the provision to close CHS.

Nick can come back but it probably will not be under the name CHS.

 Sinful Hero wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

Unless someone blabs we won't find out what the settlement was. Maybe, maybe something might come up in a financial report, but even that would just end up being a wild guess at the end of the day. Unless you were wanting to find something else out?

Not really for me it just crossed my mind that this could be a useful asset if the community wanted a copy of all of the information held.

I totally disagree with weeble's take. We have no idea who the settlement favored. Given GW wanting to just get this over with, it could have been a favorable one for CHS that would go off the table at the next hearing. We have no idea who it favored, and as CHS had an excellent position as you yourself pointed out, imo it is much more likely to favor CHS.

Regardless, the 75% of GW's claims lost is on the books, and the penalty against CHS removed. This is all good for the industry, along with the pro bono defense making GW not want to face this again. If it was indeed a favorable settlement, I'm very happy for Nick, and he deserves to be finally done with this!

In a nutshell, even if the settlement sees CHS close, it was a massively Pyrrhic victory for GW. as several people have pointed out, this case was a massive blow to GW's IP claims, and, as some of you may have noted before, led to the rebranding of an entire line of their products, and showed where the line really was in the US court system.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Do we know why the work was done pro bono? Was that a firm who are hoping to become the de facto go to guy for miniature wargaming IP issues?

The work was done "pro bono" because the firm was pretty sure (and correct!) that they could get a "win" and make law in manufacturing IP, not miniatures wargaming IP.

Manufacturing is a very broad category, with a lot of IP in it, so scoring a win against a multinational corporation is a nice feather in your cap.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
In a nutshell, even if the settlement sees CHS close, it was a massively Pyrrhic victory for GW. as several people have pointed out, this case was a massive blow to GW's IP claims, and, as some of you may have noted before, led to the rebranding of an entire line of their products, and showed where the line really was in the US court system.

Exactly!

So, while it might have been nice to see CHS carry it all across the finish line, this case as made it clearer and easier for 3rd party model manufacturers to operate in their chosen areas.

 RiTides wrote:
I totally disagree with weeble's take. We have no idea who the settlement favored. Given GW wanting to just get this over with, it could have been a favorable one for CHS that would go off the table at the next hearing. We have no idea who it favored, and as CHS had an excellent position as you yourself pointed out, imo it is much more likely to favor CHS.

Sure, we don't know who the settlement favored, but to believe that the settlement is somehow favorable to Chapterhouse Studios would require one to believe that GW would be willing to put together a juicy, tempting settlement package when it has otherwise been seemingly unwilling to do so.

The narrative is pretty easy to discern. GW stalled, delayed, threw up roadblocks, and finally did what it could have done all along in order to kill the appeal: demand payment of a judgment it knows the judgement debtor can't pay, freeze the assets of a small business, and attempt to pierce the corporate veil to go after the owner's personal assets.

That is not a precursor to a friendly settlement. That is a boot-on-neck approach. GW might have attempted to let the boot up a bit in order to get a settlement through, but given GW's behavior throughout four long years of litigation, I think it is much more likely that GW followed up its boot-on-neck approach by threatening to grind its heel into the ground.

GW's boot-on-neck approach was held to the last because it is inherently risky. If GW lost the argument, the appeal would go forward unimpeded and would be impossible to stop from that point forward.

GW got Nick to blink. After all of this, GW finally got Nick to blink. He had some of the best lawyers in the world at his back and he blinked. How did he get such first class pro-bono representation? Do you think some folks at WilmerHale called him up one day out of the blue and offered him million dollar legal services? Do you honestly think Chapterhouse Studios randomly stumbled into three first class law firms willing to take on such a complex, expensive case?

Regardless, it is over now, and while one can understand Nick's reasons for blinking, we'll never know how Judge Kennelly would have ruled. Three days... That's all it would have taken...three little days and Judge Kennelly would have been in a position to make a decision. And that was only the first bite at the apple.

How did GW get Nick to not wait three little days? Was it because they suddenly offered an unprecedented sweetheart deal, or was it because they threatened to walk away from the table and gun as hard as they could to pierce the corporate veil?

Fear and uncertainty have always been GW's weapons...always. How reasonable is it to think that they suddenly stopped using them?

But why would CH have folded under the day before GWs bluff was going to be called? Maybe the overall field of play suggests strength in GW's court, but the timing certainly suggests that it was GW that blinked first.

Of course, we probably won't find out for certain, but the Asset Freeze, motion of discovery, et. al. were probably going to end up gone, because GW couldn't legitimately back them up, right? Whereas prior to this settlement, Nick was already dealing with the asset freeze- unless the deadline the Judge gave to GW somehow coincidentally fell on the day Nick's house would be foreclosed (or whatever) and GW was all 'papa nurgle-y' and included paying off his house in the settlement or something, I don't see how a single extra day would have been at all negative for CH- in fact, it seems as though waiting that extra day would have instead been a positive for CH- giving him back his assets- and a negative for GW- their last tactic failing. Unless you're saying that the Asset Freeze, or the procedures surrounding it, somehow were going to come out in GW's favour- in which case, why did GW wait for so long to comply with the court order? Why wait for the deadline?

Anvildude wrote:
why did GW wait for so long to comply with the court order? Why wait for the deadline?

Could that be because they have time to waste and money to burn and Nick had neither? Wringing him out over time only weakens him, he's the one that has to take it home at night and lie there thinking about it, they clock off and get on with their lives. That undeniably gives them an edge even if it's wrapped up in cotton wool.

It also seemed like there was a lot of writing on the wall that the judge was getting pretty tired of GW, so wouldn't that be suggestive of GW sweetening the deal?

Anvildude wrote:
But why would CH have folded under the day before GWs bluff was going to be called? Maybe the overall field of play suggests strength in GW's court, but the timing certainly suggests that it was GW that blinked first.

You guys do not understand litigation, do you?

That a plaintiff would ever offer to pay the defendant to get out of a case is incredibly unlikely in any circumstance, regardless of whether or not it would make good sense to do so. Human behavior is often irrational, and litigation tends to make people angry and irrational, especially when one or both parties take it so personally as the parties in this case did.

Nothing changed about who was involved in the case on GW's end. No change of lawyers, no change in management.

We know that GW did just about absolutely the most aggressive thing it could have possibly done given the circumstances. Do you think GW would have telegraphed that it was scared of losing by suddenly shifting its tactics of persuasion?

I certainly don't think so. But if it makes you feel better to think that GW got scared, blinked, and gave Nick a nice, fat check with five zeros on it, go right ahead.

Like I said, GW may have put an abysmal offer on the table and then thrown a proverbial bone in at the last minute. That sort of behavior would also fit. But I don't think that is what happened.

GW likes to double down. We all know that. Jonathan Moskin likes to say the same idiotic thing over and over again, seemingly getting more and more upset about it until you start believing that it just might be true. That's his MO. That's his entire litigation strategy. So when he takes the position that he is going to make you homeless, he aint backing down from that. He's going to act like the result is simply a foregone conclusion and that the only way to get out of it is to stop the process from going forward.

GW blinked alright. GW blinked when it filed its citation to discover assets. It was a desperate gamble, and that's why GW waited until the very last opportunity to do it. Apparently Nick thought that it wasn't worth the risk to call GW's bluff. That's his call, but a lot of work went into getting him to that point.

And I really do mean a lot of work. The amount of time, effort, and money that was thrown into the GW v Chaperhouse Studios case is staggering. Now, it was all ultimately for the best interests of Chapterhouse Studios, and Nick Villacci is the one who makes the final call about what is in his/the company's best interests. That's the way the cookie crumbles...

But at the end of the day, Nick's decision has impacted the entire market. We'll never get to see the appeal. Judge Kennelly's crazy rulings will stand untested. Go open one of your TTG books. Flip to the middle and pick out the smallest piece of artwork on the page. According to Judge Kennelly, you just found a valid trademark in use in commerce. Because of Nick's decision, we'll never get to see what the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has to say about decisions like that.

His pro bono counsel may have advised him to settle. They may have felt they got what they needed from the settlement. You say the offer "may" have been abyssmal, or they "may" have thrown him a bone, but it's just a guess like everyone else's. GW's annual report indicated they did not think the litigation was worth continuing, so they could very possibly have made a good offer to get out of it. They did not want to be stuck in this case for next year's report.

 RiTides wrote:
His pro bono counsel may have advised him to settle. They may have felt they got what they needed from the settlement. You say the offer "may" have been abyssmal, or they "may" have thrown him a bone, but it's just a guess like everyone else's. GW's annual report indicated they did not think the litigation was worth continuing, so they could very possibly have made a good offer to get out of it. They did not want to be stuck in this case for next year's report.

Counsel does not advise you to settle. Lawyers simply give you information. It is one of the worst, and most understandable, habits of a lawyer.

The client makes the decision. The lawyer only provides the client with information, and lawyers never tell you that there is a guarantee. It is in a lawyer's interest to be conservative and to not over promise.

Put yourself into the shoes of a client.

You are worried about a particular result. It is keeping you up at nights. Your lawyer explains all the ins and outs of the rules, tells you what the options are, and maybe gives you a rough guess as to the odds. Your lawyer makes sure to tell you that it is definitely possible that the undesirable result will happen. That thing keeping you up nights, it could happen. Now, there's X, Y, and Z to do about it. There's A, B, and C things to do to stop it from happening. But it might happen. It might happen for reasons D, E, and F. You know that reason F that you did back when, well that makes the undesirable thing more likely to happen. For future reference, doing thing F is not a good idea.

And by the way, Mr. Opponent also communicated settlement proposal Alpha last night. It includes terms Beta, Gama, and Omega.

If you are nervous already, is that going to make you less nervous? But like I said, that's how lawyers tend to communicate, and there are good reasons for that.

 Casey's Law wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

Just in case this gets missed on the last page.

IANAL but FOIA is pretty much geared towards citizens getting info about govt activities.
Since this is a civil matter with a closed outcome, I doubt FOIA would apply.

Hopefully Nick will pop in soon to say whether or not he's going to be back up and running with Chapterhouse.

weeble1000 wrote:
But at the end of the day, Nick's decision has impacted the entire market. We'll never get to see the appeal. Judge Kennelly's crazy rulings will stand untested. Go open one of your TTG books. Flip to the middle and pick out the smallest piece of artwork on the page. According to Judge Kennelly, you just found a valid trademark in use in commerce. Because of Nick's decision, we'll never get to see what the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has to say about decisions like that.

How likely is it GW will go after another bits maker, since they did way there were several they had been keeping an eye on? Would the lack of appeal make it easier or more difficult for GW to "win" on the claims that were thrown out with the appeal?

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
How likely is it GW will go after another bits maker, since they did way there were several they had been keeping an eye on? Would the lack of appeal make it easier or more difficult for GW to "win" on the claims that were thrown out with the appeal?

GW is crazy and irrational. Predicting GW's behavior is nearly an exercise in futility.

That said, Tom Kirby made a blanket characterization that litigation involves far too much cost for far too little gain.

GW's in house counsel, Gill Stevenson, was let go, and she might have been the personality partly driving the new wave of aggressive litigation.

The GW v CHS case was, if anything, severely emotionally damaging to the folks at GW HQ. GW now better understands the high risk of litigation.

The various bits companies are generally better prepared now than they were previously, and GW knows that too.

GW might want to follow up the conclusion of the CHS litigation by making a new assertion of dominance, but there's always the specter of another 4 years of litigation, another million dollars down the drain, and all in front of a less favorable judge in potentially a less favorable venue with less favorable facts.

GW is also partially wedded to some of the statements it made in the CHS litigation, and any potential defendant has a great deal of expensive work already done for them. If GW sues a company in the UK, for example, it costs virtually nothing to trot out Professor Bently's expert report, and Hell, you could give him a call too. Now GW is back to fighting whether its products are toys or artwork.

In sum, it is much less attractive for GW to litigate further, the stakes are naturally higher, and the risks are demonstrably greater. That doesn't mean GW won't do it though.

But GW should always remember this. It was no accident that Chapterhouse Studios got representation from three powerful law firms. It was no lightning strike, and it would be foolish for GW to believe that it can't happen twice.

 Casey's Law wrote:


We could all get one and descend on our local stores.

If ChapterHouse resumes buissiness they should pack one of these free in each order of $50 or more

weeble1000 wrote:

 mechanicalhorizon wrote:
How likely is it GW will go after another bits maker, since they did way there were several they had been keeping an eye on? Would the lack of appeal make it easier or more difficult for GW to "win" on the claims that were thrown out with the appeal?

GW is crazy and irrational. Predicting GW's behavior is nearly an exercise in futility.

That said, Tom Kirby made a blanket characterization that litigation involves far too much cost for far too little gain.

GW's in house counsel, Gill Stevenson, was let go, and she might have been the personality partly driving the new wave of aggressive litigation.

The GW v CHS case was, if anything, severely emotionally damaging to the folks at GW HQ. GW now better understands the high risk of litigation.

The various bits companies are generally better prepared now than they were previously, and GW knows that too.

GW might want to follow up the conclusion of the CHS litigation by making a new assertion of dominance, but there's always the specter of another 4 years of litigation, another million dollars down the drain, and all in front of a less favorable judge in potentially a less favorable venue with less favorable facts.

GW is also partially wedded to some of the statements it made in the CHS litigation, and any potential defendant has a great deal of expensive work already done for them. If GW sues a company in the UK, for example, it costs virtually nothing to trot out Professor Bently's expert report, and Hell, you could give him a call too. Now GW is back to fighting whether its products are toys or artwork.

In sum, it is much less attractive for GW to litigate further, the stakes are naturally higher, and the risks are demonstrably greater. That doesn't mean GW won't do it though.

But GW should always remember this. It was no accident that Chapterhouse Studios got representation from three powerful law firms. It was no lightning strike, and it would be foolish for GW to believe that it can't happen twice.

At the same time, GW has been making a specific effort to rebrand what they sell from gaming pieces to collector's pieces. That may well be indicating that the next go around they want to try thing out in the UK as opposed to out in the colonies. That alone is enough to make me suspicious of where they might go next. It is a very target rich environment for them - and if CHS made them as upset as they did...I can only imagine how twisted up they must be about any of a dozen companies in their own backyard.

While it might have been Gill who was the one who spear headed these cases - I would also remind that GW hires for attitude, not ability. No doubt, they hired her for her attitude regarding fear mongering and other tactics. Her actual depositions always struck me as her not really having much of a clue when it came to...well, much of anything in regards to this case. I would guess that when CHS didn't turn off the lights and go away, she was clueless as to what to do next.

Personally - now that this has ended as it has, I would like to see someone (anyone...takes almost no effort) in the UK to go ahead and apply for a "License of Rights" on GW's figures. Force their hand now before they have a chance to regroup. If they end up trying to ignore/deny - you go into pretty straight forward mediation with a lackey from the IPO. All you need to do is find a figure that was created between 5 and 9 years ago. Since GW doesn't register the designs - they have an unregistered design right of 10 years. In the last 5 years of that term though, they must agree to license the design (for a reasonable fee) to anyone who wants to make and sell copies of the design.

They say no. IPO says they have to. Precedent for them being designs not art is set. Everything in GW's catalog opens up to anyone who wants to make them (or parts to go with them, or pretty much anything else...).* No expensive court cases, no long drawn out discovery and deposition periods. Simple, simple.


* And by everything, I do really mean almost everything. Anything that is older than 10 years. Anything that is based on a design that is older than 10 years. Anything that is based on a design that is older than 15 years that never went to market (so all of those Jes Goodwin/Blanche sketches and other concepts that have been languishing for decades). Titans, tanks and everything from the Specialist Games.

@Sean_OBeien
If it's that simple, why don't you try it? Have to be a UK citizen?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I have suspicions that there's been some real egg on face for the 'legal sledgehammer' brigade inside GW. I'm hopeful we'll see a shift in behavior following this long and expensive PR disaster, especially with a new CEO. This is sort of a monument to the folly of focusing on legal aggression and ignoring the game and business.

I keep hoping against hope they'll shift tack and get around to tight rules, putting a halt on prices and bringing us back, at least, to the early days of 5th. Less 'Wayland Yutani' and more 'GAMES' workshop...

If you really do make the best model soldiers in the world, you've nothing to worry about and should have realized if these little 'cottage industries' are cropping up around your business, it's because your business had become large enough to sustain them, that's not someone 'stealing' from your plate, that's an indicator your business is doing well and you should have ignored it or looked into licensing...

The really silly thing is any sales diverted to CH, must pale in comparison to those redirected to pirate recasters.

So GW hit a company that was actually sculpting and making new models, and ignored the pirates.

Not sure what they could do to pirates based in China & Russia, but it does make this look even more pointless.

 Sinful Hero wrote:
@Sean_OBeien
If it's that simple, why don't you try it? Have to be a UK citizen?

Yep. Or own a business based in the UK. I have actually already looked into doing it myself and actually gotten to the point of requesting mediation. They wouldn't let me pass go though.

privateer4hire wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

Just in case this gets missed on the last page.

IANAL but FOIA is pretty much geared towards citizens getting info about govt activities.
Since this is a civil matter with a closed outcome, I doubt FOIA would apply.

FOIA has nothing to do with civil litigation, only government records. There's nothing here to FOIA.

Not a lawyer, but have had to deal with FOIA requests in the past...

Valete,

JohnS

privateer4hire wrote:

 Casey's Law wrote:
Can we, the community, make any use of the Freedom of Information Act to gather information together. It might be worth doing even if there is nothing new disclosed.

IANAL but FOIA is pretty much geared towards citizens getting info about govt activities.
Since this is a civil matter with a closed outcome, I doubt FOIA would apply.

I am by no means versed in law or government systems but surely the information on this case has been recorded in public records? Not everything but at least a simple sequence of events. Maybe someone knows otherwise.

Any of these bodies possibly hold records?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bet me to it. Thanks.