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.

To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Yes, because GW invented the idea of orcs and humans in a fantasy setting You seem to be forgetting GW are the worst for IP "borrowing".

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

 Zweischneid wrote:
So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

Probably because Amazon preorders are loopy. I've seen books on there for preorder after the writers/publishers had stated they wouldn't be distrubuting through Amazon. Apparently they will list things for preorders without even having contacted the people involved in making it.

 Glorioski wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

There is a significant difference between "pulling out" and "turning down" a deal.
The idea that GW were the ones who "pulled out" does not gel with the situation at the time. GW already had a licensing deal in place for both 40k and Fantasy and Blizzard was a relatively unknown factor at the time...so why jeopardize what they already had for a wild card?

In any case, if there was any kind of legal dispute there would have likely been some kind of confidential agreement.

Looks like Amazon will sell a used copy through a third party seller

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
In U.S. law the sound of the word matters as well as the look of the logo.
That's why Apple Computers might sue Mr. Adam Pell if he starts making A. Pell Computers.

US law doesn't have much faith in the spelling capabilities of US citizens then

nkelsch wrote:

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
though they still don't own the word as other things have used it
yeah GW may think they are a big fish but they'd never tango for most things with some of the companies out there (eg Blizzard)

Actually they actually do own the word regardless if other people have used it because they do have a valid trademark. The question is does their trademark expand outside the areas where they undeniably own the trademark? And there is a case to be made due to the nature of trademarks that if they can show dominance, the trademark can apply. It is not a 'slam dunk' that if someone stood up to would instantly lose, if anything they have more of a case here than other cases they are involved in.

You may not like it, but they do own the trademark and they do have the right to defend it.

Just because you have filed a trademark does not make that trademark defensible. The mere act of filing that mark in no way provides iron clad protections.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Glorioski wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

There is a significant difference between "pulling out" and "turning down" a deal.
The idea that GW were the ones who "pulled out" does not gel with the situation at the time. GW already had a licensing deal in place for both 40k and Fantasy and Blizzard was a relatively unknown factor at the time...so why jeopardize what they already had for a wild card?

The point is Blizzard didn't say there was no game to be made as Orktavius said, they were either involved in negotiations with GW or had already agreed a deal. They wanted the Warhammer IP.

 Glorioski wrote:
This isn't what happened. GW were the ones who pulled out of/turned down a deal to make a game with Blizzard. They were left with a half finished game and ended up re-branding it as Warcraft: Orcs and Humans.

You make it sound like GW was the ones giving Blizzard the shaft and leaving them holding the baby, from what I understand it's a bit more complicated than that...

Allen Adham hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition. Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors, including a lack of traction on business terms and a fervent desire on the part of virtually everyone else on the development team (myself included) to control our own universe nixed any potential for a deal. We had already had terrible experiences working with DC Comics on "Death and Return of Superman" and "Justice League Task Force", and wanted no similar issues for our new game.

http://kotaku.com/5929157/the-making-of-warcraft-part-1

No I'm simply responding to someone who made it out to be the opposite.

its works like this

GW have a product that loosely has the term "space marine"

Someone makes a product that uses the same term

GW legal team sends them a "you can't do that letter"

However you have a right to object to this if you take us to court

court is expensive so most cave in

This is done all the time by other companies to kick potential rivals before they make money

the reality is GW don't own the term space marine what they own is the look their artists/modlers have made and if it went to court they most likely be told to go suck a lemon for wasting the courts time

ThatMG wrote:

the reality is GW don't own the term space marine what they own is the look their artists/modlers have made and if it went to court they most likely be told to go suck a lemon for wasting the courts time

I seriously doubt that. People do have trademarks which are valid, and Gw has some very strong trademarks. They would not easily have Space Marines overturned if someone simply stood up.

While the ability to extend the trademark to books may or may not be valid depending how GW could prove market dominance, to think that they are within one short court appearance of having all of their trademarks overturned in all arenas and everyone will be making "Space Marines", that is not based in reality.

Claiming Space Marine as a trademark is akin to claiming Dark Elf as a trademark. Its utter bunk. The name is vague and applicable to every western futuristic soldier since Starship Troopers came out.

Now if someone has Space Marines that are super human with a slew of implants, organized into chapters, refer to each other as Battle Brothers, use identical tech, etc, then you have some form of infringement.

GW is really making it hard to support them in any way. They continue to try and bully ANYONE they can with their lawyers even when they have absolutely no grounds to do so.

At this point, I hope CH wins and GW stocks plummet and new management is put in place.

 Pacific wrote:

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Well I can hardly say I am surprised. Sadly the author got what was coming to her. If only the same would happen to Chapterhouse.

And heeeeeee's back... and with what a post !!!

Well, I try my best.

 Amaya wrote:
Claiming Space Marine as a trademark is akin to claiming Dark Elf as a trademark. Its utter bunk. The name is vague and applicable to every western futuristic soldier since Starship Troopers came out.

Now if someone has Space Marines that are super human with a slew of implants, organized into chapters, refer to each other as Battle Brothers, use identical tech, etc, then you have some form of infringement.

Well, it depends on the context too, etc.. .

Apple does have a trademark to "Apple" if you use it in conjunction with things like 'computer', etc.. . but they obviously don't have a trademark to you using 'Apple' in combination with things like 'juice', 'fruits', 'sirup', etc.. .

The trademark register the author of 'Spots the Space Marine' cites states rather clearly, that GW has 'Space Marine' trademarked in several categories, including "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, "

Thus, if you are selling 'Space Marine paint' or a 'Space Marine card game', GW will own you.

The thing is, GW doesn't seem to have the term 'Space Marine' trademarked for books, fiction or literature, most likely because its been used in this field long before GW came along.

 Zweischneid wrote:
Apple does have a trademark to "Apple" if you use it in conjunction with things like 'computer', etc.. . but they obviously don't have a trademark to you using 'Apple' in combination with things like 'juice', 'fruits', 'sirup', etc..

Apple is not a good example, as they stole the name and symbol of the old Beatles record label. They finally settled this out of court after 28 years of lawsuits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v._Apple_Computer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Records

 Zweischneid wrote:
Thus, if you are selling 'Space Marine paint' or a 'Space Marine card game', GW will own you.

The thing is, GW doesn't seem to have the term 'Space Marine' trademarked for books, fiction or literature, most likely because its been used in this field long before GW came along.

And again - they weren't even the first to field with 'Space Marine' with games (1977 game called "Space Marines" published by Fantac and a second edition by Fantasy Games Unlimited in 1980 still in print in 2001) or miniatures (1982 miniatures line by Asgard Miniatures and still in production by Alternative Armies). Since the right of a trademark (assuming it isn't deemed a generic term) would lie with the company which first used it in commerce - that company isn't GW. You also have the miniatures produced by Stan Johansen Miniatures for the FGU version of the 'Space Marines' game which are also still in production.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
Since the right of a trademark (assuming it isn't deemed a generic term) would lie with the company which first used it in commerce - that company isn't GW.

Almost. The right of a trademark would lie with the company that registered it first as a trademark. And similar to cyber-squatting, you can also get pwned for trademark squatting, i.e. registering trademarks to certain names, domains, brands, etc.. pre-emptively to extort royalties from a company actually making product with those brands/names/etc.. .

It's certainly not as simple as being "first".

No - first use in commerce is the requirement...specifically called out in US statutes, and generally also called out in other jurisdictions.

Registering a trademark is not essential to protections for trademarks, it gives them some added recourse in terms of seeking damages...however it isn't necessary to protect the mark. That is why you see both ™ and ®. The former being used to denote trademarks and the later registered trademarks. It becomes a trademark the first time that you use it in commerce. You can register it as well with one of the various registration authorities like the USPTO - and even then, you must use it in commerce for the claim to be valid.

So - yes, it is as simple as being first.

You can read the case law in the following Cuban Cigar Brands N.V. v. Upmann International, Inc. and Baron Philippe de Rothschild v. Paramount Distillers, Inc. In each case, an unregistered prior user was granted the right to the registered trademark of a later user.

Generally speaking, the unregistered prior user can be limited by the region in which their products are sold before the applicant for registration registers the mark - but in this particular case, the examples I cited were sold globally (the 'Space Marines' game was actually reviewed in White Dwarf magazine).

The specific US Statute is in the Lanham Act Section 7(c)(1):

http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1057.html

 Zweischneid wrote:
So why is Spots the Space Marine still/back on Amazon? If only as paperback-preorder, not as Kindle?

I just downloaded it onto my Nook, FWIW. Wouldn't have ever considered getting it / known about it but for this thread, so thanks for that . I wonder if the book will actually see a sales bump through other channels due to this.

So is it, or is it not available through Amazon? It certainly looks to be available from Z's link.

Edit: At the Amazon link, it looks like you can buy the paperback version, but not the kindle edition. Just another reason to get a Nook instead, guys

I stopped reading at, "Marine private called out of retirement..."

Really? Retired? As a private? Talk about your glass ceilings.

I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

 doc1234 wrote:

Orktavius wrote:
To be fair I'm surprised GW never did go after Blizzard for IP infringement. After all, Blizzard spent about 2 years going through GW's IP before declaring from what I heard there was no game to be made there before promptly releasing Warcraft :Orcs and Humans a little while later followed by StarCraft. To be fair though this was back before GW was a publicly traded company I believe and I think marked the first time GW had attempted to license out their IP for a video game and got burned badly for it.

That being said this is simply GW doing the sadly necessary act of IP protection. You protect it or you simply lose it, plain and simple fact is they have to do the occasional dick like this otherwise they get into situations like the chapterhouse debacle.

Yes, because GW invented the idea of orcs and humans in a fantasy setting You seem to be forgetting GW are the worst for IP "borrowing".

GW is hypocritical and deluded though, so it is indeed a surprise they didn't go after Blizzard. My guess is they really think they invented and own the concepts of Space Marines, Orcs in Space, and a devouring insectoid race.

 RiTides wrote:
I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

Sort of a semantic difference between retirement and just separating. Retirement generally infers that they have "done their 20 years" and retired to collect a pension and tell stories at the VFW.

The ready reserve as we call them in the US is a pretty common concept. Most other countries have some form of it. Basically, it times of need (read whenever the Jstars feel like it) the DoD can recall people who have separated from the military who have training which is in need. Normally it is for fields which have a significant training period, though sometimes it is just to fill high turnover/low fulfillment positions.

In general though, I don't think that would be a deal breaker for me on the story itself. It may just be a flubbing of the "proper" terms and even if it isn't - it isn't that significant of an issue for the younger audience.

It isn't that significant, I guess, but it does stand out to anyone who has any experience with the US military where enlisted personnel can only retire after twenty years and I assure you that if you are a private at the end of that time, you are not retiring so much as being discharged for misconduct.

There's a show called Revolution that a lot of people seem to like. I tried watching it but stopped after a while because it was like being hit with the stupid stick every single episode.

Sean_OBrien wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I'm not military... but can you not retire as a private? And is it not possible to be called back up later? I had the impression that many militaries reserve the right to pull service members back in for a certain number of years (it happened to my friend as well).

Seems a rather odd thing to cause you to stop reading! I'll let people know what I think of it when I've read it (it has very good reviews on Amazon, although not many total) but I'm in the middle of another series right now so won't get to it for a bit.

Sort of a semantic difference between retirement and just separating. Retirement generally infers that they have "done their 20 years" and retired to collect a pension and tell stories at the VFW.

The ready reserve as we call them in the US is a pretty common concept. Most other countries have some form of it. Basically, it times of need (read whenever the Jstars feel like it) the DoD can recall people who have separated from the military who have training which is in need. Normally it is for fields which have a significant training period, though sometimes it is just to fill high turnover/low fulfillment positions.

In general though, I don't think that would be a deal breaker for me on the story itself. It may just be a flubbing of the "proper" terms and even if it isn't - it isn't that significant of an issue for the younger audience.

Breotan wrote:I stopped reading at, "Marine private called out of retirement..."

Really? Retired? As a private? Talk about your glass ceilings.

Perhaps I am reading this incorrectly, but I interpreted Breotan's point to be astonishment at the low rank (hence the reference to "glass ceiling"). A marine Corp Private is the lowest and least experienced rank of Marine, and in modern service one would expect to be promoted out of that grade within 6 months or so. Any individual with a length of service I would personally expect to be some form of Non-Commissioned Officer (at least some rank of Corporal or Sergeant).

By way of example, I have a friend who has been in the Army for less then 2 years (one deployment to Afghanistan) and is an E4 (equivalent to a Corporal in the USMC).

Got it... sound like a typo / misnomer by the author, nothing to see here, move along?