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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sean_OBrien wrote:
FTC guidelines in the US generally prohibit a manufacturer from setting up a company store in direct competition with existing retail stores. That will end up being the primary action that will begin to see GW move from their guidelines being enforced legally versus illegal activity. Tie-in sales would likely be another thing that GW could run afoul with..

I'm not familiar with this, specifically the retail store elements I quoted. I've read through the link you dropped, and not seeing what you're saying (so I'm probably just missing it), but that aside for a moment. Doesn't there have to be some official finding that GWS has some sort of dominant relationship before anything like this could be actioned?

GW actually claims the dominant relationship. You also have different sources like the IcV2 polls that can be used to demonstrate dominance to get the regulators moving. Once they are underway though - all they would do is call up a distributor like Alliance and ask for records of sales to establish the market dominance.

There are also case by case examples. If a supplier makes up a large percentage of a given retailers business, and the retailer meets certain other requirements (one example was using manufacturer provided signs and displays) it creates a defacto franchise relationship. That franchise relationship ensures that a manufacturer can not place a company store in competition with the retailer as common rights of the franchisee are exclusivity to territories. That is one of the reasons that GW placed the clause in the contract that says "You are not a franchise" or something like that. The problem though is that that clause is unenforceable in jurisdictions which grant defacto franchise relationships (sort of like the sign on the dump truck that says they are not responsible for damage caused by debris that falls off the truck...of course they are, you can not override existing laws with a contract).

Regarding the specific FTC guidelines, it is all buried in the case law and opinions. I would have to dig them back out of my tablet as I don't have the PDF files handy right now. If you give the Sherman Anti-trust Act a read though, most of it is fairly straight forward as to which clauses can be used and very few of them actually require a monopoly.

Well, that certainly explains that "franchisee" statement, which did stick out as odd.

 Empchild wrote:

 BitWraith wrote:
Here's a handy chart that will clear up any misunderstandings as to your right to sell your GW items::

If you signed a contract with GW then you are legally restriced in what you can do.

If you buy some GW miniatures from any source and do not sign any contracts, knock yourself out.

What he said and sean until i see an esq in your name all legal statements are invalid.

Ummm...huh?

I have never claimed to be an attorney, and I never give legal advice per se. I do give legal sources and research that I am aware of that others could use to pursue options. That can hardly be considered invalid. A licensed attorney would never give advice online - other than to seek the advice of a licensed attorney, as there are a variety of malpractice issues that they can run afoul of. They might provide commentary, which isn't much different than what I am doing - the only difference is that they might have a clearer memory of which cases impact certain aspects.

In regards to the person you have quoted...that is exactly what I have been saying. The supply chain will be limited with the way the contract is written. They can no longer sell to businesses (whether bits dealers, painters or eBay retailers). However, if you buy product from one of them, you are not bound by that contract...though you do put their business at risk as if GW identifies your source of goods - they can shut off their trade account.

There is no reason to take what I say for anything other than what it is - generally pointing to a source where you can follow up with your own research (like the Competition Act in Canada) and if you feel it might apply contact the appropriate people (either attorneys or the regulators like the FTC or Competition Commission in Canada).

In regards to the person you have quoted...that is exactly what I have been saying. The supply chain will be limited with the way the contract is written. They can no longer sell to businesses (whether bits dealers, painters or eBay retailers). However, if you buy product from one of them, you are not bound by that contract...though you do put their business at risk as if GW identifies your source of goods - they can shut off their trade account.

Seems like the burden would fall on GW to prove some sort of intent. I doubt that 99% of retailers keep track of the goings-on of their customers, and I really don't think anyone is going to institute background checks on GW miniatures. I don;t think GW has a gestapo like underground police force - but if they do I'm sure they could improve their margins substantially by getting rid of the department. That was sarcasm BTW.

It seems like it would be difficult to prove in any court, contract or no, that a retailer is responsible for the actions of their customers. If that were the case, then gun sellers would be in court all the time for murders committed with their weapons.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, that certainly explains that "franchisee" statement, which did stick out as odd.

Just a quick link to one of the better summary articles which covers some of the issues I had mentioned in regards to the retail stores (far from the only one - but an easy read):

http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-324311849741271/unrestricted/!thesisd.pdf

It deals primarily with Iowa's franchise law, though it also bounces back and forth with Federal laws and those of other states. Page 16 gives a brief regarding the encroachment law. The importance of this is that Iowa is a state that grants defacto franchise status between suppliers and retailers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BitWraith wrote:

In regards to the person you have quoted...that is exactly what I have been saying. The supply chain will be limited with the way the contract is written. They can no longer sell to businesses (whether bits dealers, painters or eBay retailers). However, if you buy product from one of them, you are not bound by that contract...though you do put their business at risk as if GW identifies your source of goods - they can shut off their trade account.

Seems like the burden would fall on GW to prove some sort of intent. I doubt that 99% of retailers keep track of the goings-on of their customers, and I really don't think anyone is going to institute background checks on GW miniatures. I don;t think GW has a gestapo like underground police force - but if they do I'm sure they could improve their margins substantially by getting rid of the department. That was sarcasm BTW.

It seems like it would be difficult to prove in any court, contract or no, that a retailer is responsible for the actions of their customers. If that were the case, then gun sellers would be in court all the time for murders committed with their weapons.

I don't think they would be able to track down all of them - but I am sure they will find some...

The issue though is that GW can just stop supplying them, they don't need to prove anything. The retailer would need to take them to court under one of the anti-trust statutes that I have been pointing towards or file a complaint with the FTC under an abusive business practices claim...

The issue though is that GW can just stop supplying them, they don't need to prove anything. The retailer would need to take them to court under one of the anti-trust statutes that I have been pointing towards or file a complaint with the FTC under an abusive business practices claim...

And of course no small game store can afford to take GW to court - and the circle of life is now complete!

 BitWraith wrote:

The issue though is that GW can just stop supplying them, they don't need to prove anything. The retailer would need to take them to court under one of the anti-trust statutes that I have been pointing towards or file a complaint with the FTC under an abusive business practices claim...

And of course no small game store can afford to take GW to court - and the circle of life is now complete!

Correct...which leads to my conspiracy theory that the secondary reason for these contract clauses is to allow GW to stifle LGS which are problematic for them. Whether it is a LGS which is preventing one of their stores to be profitable, or one which they have another issue with...though that is just crazy talk...

BTW, Ouze - another good read in general is this one:

http://www.pli.edu/product_files/EN00000000104805/88318.pdf

In particular take note of what is used to prove market dominance and also the dual distribution issue (where a supplier also is a retailer and would be competing against other retailers). Pay careful not to terminology as they often switch from customer to distributor and can be talking about the same thing...a retailer. I am trying to track down the case law behind the geographic restriction issue (5.30) which seems to imply that a supplier can not cancel a distribution contract if a geographic market restriction is violated, but can only fine them equal to the loss to see how that might be calculated...it may end up being a choice for retailers who want to still run the blockade around Australia and elsewhere.

There is also a good chance that GW might be found to have made decisions relating to the contract as a result of pressures (like other B&M stores complaining about internet sales...and possibly with relation to the dual-distribution issue, their own retail arm). That could end up invalidating the entire internet ban...though no doubt, that is probably part of the reason that they listed the "reasons" they listed in the contract itself.

OK, this is a lot of reading, so I'll need a bit.

 judgedoug wrote:

 OverwatchCNC wrote:

Because CEOs are so in danger of going to jail, we should really ask the CEOs of Mortgage Companies and Big Banks in the US responsible for the economic collapse of 2008 how their time in jail is going. Oh wait.

Don't be disingenuous. Corporations are like hardcore tournament players - they follow the rules exactly as written (and not the intent), playing WAAC, exploiting every loophole. Of course all these laws are written by your friendly neighborhood corrupt congressmen who puts in those loopholes for every campaign contribution that corporation makes to them.

No, they don't.

Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars have been paid out in settlements. Numerous prosecutors and regulators have said outright that criminal actions were committed by numerous financial firms. In fact, there was a Japanese company, IIRC, that revealed in a civil suit internal memos at Morgan Stanley where they were revealing how they defrauded their investors.

And BTW, basically every large bank has been implicated thus far - Wachovia, Bank of America, JP Morgan, UBS, and HSBC have all paid out of court settlements numbering hundreds of millions of dollars. In effect, that's the purpose of the settlements - the US government is trying to innoculate the major US and international firms against potential criminal liability, or at least limit their liability to an absolute minimum. This is why virtually none of these companies have been forced into an admission of guilt following the settlements.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/financial-crisis-lawsuit-suggests-bad-behavior-at-morgan-stanley/

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/ubs-settlement-minimizes-impact-of-guilty-plea/

"As DealBook reported, the guilty plea by the UBS subsidiary is the first time an arm of major financial institution has been convicted of a crime since Drexel Burnham was more than 20 years ago. Although that distinguishes this case from most others, the Justice Department and UBS also structured the settlement to keep the potential fallout from the plea to a minimum."
"In the rate-manipulation settlement, the parent company received a separate nonprosecution agreement, which will be in effect for two years, after which the criminal investigation will be closed without any charges being filed."

etc.

So in effect,

They both break the law and evade criminal prosecution and simultaneously write the laws, although it is really unrealistic to expect that the US government or the DoJ would start writing the laws or especially breaking the laws to suit an obscure British manufacturer of miniature game tokens. Regarding the CEOs, the entire purpose of a corporation is to shield the investors and the employees from liability in the event of some catastrophic financial breakdown, so yes, the CEOs of GW are probably inclined towards the payday mentality of corporate leadership.

So, Warstore hasnt changed its online policy yet. When does this all go into effect?

June 15th

Apparently this is also outlawing Ebay ( if you buy from a trade account) also bones anyone supplying ebay sellers.

And by outlawing i mean they wont allow supply of product (via trade acc pricing) to someone for it....

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Just ordered bits from Warstore, help Neal out as much as we can guys!

I have a strong feeling that this new move by GW is directly aimed at him.

So was the shopping cart thing a few years back, apparently the warstore was pulling in more business then GW online and they had to crush it by claiming using their pictures and product codes violated their IP

That's legal?

No, it's not. Unless GW wants to mark all their images as copyrighted. In addition, as long as a site gives proper recognition to the copyright holder and is not reselling the image itself, it is all still legal.

However, it is against GW rules. So while you could get away with using their images given the above, they can also refuse to sell to you as a result of using their images. That is legal.

And therein lies the conundrum. Sure you could legally use their images. But they can then legally refuse to sell to you.

Just another case of GW wishing it was 1995 all over again.

You don't actually have to mark an image as copyright for copyright to apply to it. The marking is just an extra, visible reminder.

 Sean_OBrien wrote:


Actually it was a news article where Kirby was interviewed...probably the last 4 months or so. I will need to poke around to find the exact source though...unless someone else has it handy.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/18a3b430-6188-11e2-82cd-00144feab49a.html

“North America is going very well,” said Mr Kirby. “We’re looking at 700-800 stores in the US in the extreme long term and we’ve got 80 at the moment with plans to open 1-20 stores per year.”

Sorry, had to laugh at this. Kirby's plan is basically saying it will take from 35 to 100 years to fully realize in the US at opening a rate of 1-20 stores a year. I can even see the complete bullocks in this statement for the corporate doublespeak it is. Kirby is going to retire in the next 3-5 years. All he cares about at this point is pumping up the stock price for his retirement.

His only problem is, the dang internet. You see, because of the internet investors have become a lot smarter too. For example, yes we can see that they have become more profitable. However, we can also see this has come at the expense of critical cost-cutting in key business areas while non-critical areas (management) have doubled in the same time frame. We can see overall adjusted revenue decline in the last ten years. We can see a massive reduction in offerings in exchange for a few because the core functions of the business can no longer support the revenue generating areas of the business. In short, we can see today's GW for what it is - an executive management short-term pump and dump before retirement. Just like GW completely misunderstands their customers today, they also completely misunderstand investors. As an investor, I NEVER take what I read in their financials at face value - we are well aware that it is gloss-over junk made to make a company look good. We do our homework - and the homework on GW is making it look like an investment to stay clear of (or at least short) because their long-term growth prospects look dismal. Although GWs stock price has climbed well in the last twelve year, it is still off from the 2005 peak and is valley trending downwards now as is standard for their history since 1995. It started showing signs of resistance since August of last year and forward looking trends do not look like it is going to be broken.

Lastly, I'd like to correct a fallacy that inevitably always comes up in threads like this (as it already has) and this is not directed at anyone in particular. Stockholders (investors) do NOT ONLY care about profit. Take a look at Apple's stock performance since last September for a key indicator of this. The problem is, most senior management focuses on profit and the P/E ratio as a measure of investment attractiveness, whereas many investors focus on adjusted revenue growth, investment (growth) in core business disciplines and meeting or exceeding standard industry net income margins. I, personally, have direct investment in 34 companies and many investors in my own company. First and foremost, we always look at revenue growth versus inflation-adjusted performance. That is a key indicator of business direction and in the last 10-years GW has failed miserably here (they have declined over the last ten years by 28% in inflation adjusted revenue). So, if a company fails at revenue growth, is it because of market forces? Well the success of PP, Battlefront, and the shear number of high-quality products and companies coming in the market seem to indicate otherwise. So next we look at PPU (price per unit). One example - Land Raider was $50 in 2001, should be $65 in inflation adjusted today but is $75 so 15% above inflation. So it is not because pricing has decreased. Okay then, how is profit better then if revenue has fallen? So we look at costs. GW has managed to cut costs all right - of core business functions. In the same period, non-core (i.e., the money sinks) have almost doubled. In other words, GW financials of the last ten years alone give a picture of a company being run for the enrichment of senior management, not as a business (these are the ones that Warren Buffett warns to stay well away from). GW currently gives the picture of a company to stay away from for investment (or, at best, to short) even though there have been profit improvements. My point here is, investors/stockholders do not ONLY care about profit at the expense of all other key, and sane, business practices. Investors are customers of companies too. Unfortunately, far too many companies are run as if investors only care about profit (ah, who are we kidding, they are run solely for the purpose of making senior management wealthy, investors are just something they have to deal with to get there) when that is usually far from the case.

Someone claimed that brick and mortar stores will soon no longer sell be allowed to sell ANY GW products on-line, is this true?

This is all a direct result of the Chapterhouse lawsuit.
Also the fact they do not show anything early anymore is because of that too.They do not want to say something is coming out early then the 3rd party put out bits ahead of time(think thunderwolves)
This info came from Bothans,just saying

 BrookM wrote:
Someone claimed that brick and mortar stores will soon no longer sell be allowed to sell ANY GW products on-line, is this true?

Only in the US, where it's been the case for a decade now, as has been covered several times already in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eisenhorn wrote:

Also the fact they do not show anything early anymore is because of that too.They do not want to say something is coming out early then the 3rd party put out bits ahead of time(think thunderwolves)

Except the issue with Thunderwolves was that they were added to a codex, and then GW refused to give any indication as to just when a model would be released for them... And when enough time had gone by to make it obvious that they weren't a priority, other people started releasing their own versions. Fewer of these would have sold if people had known when GW versions were coming out. Or even if GW versions were coming out. Which ultimately means that the lack of news about the release cost GW sales.

So Thunderwolves are not an example of why the secrecy policy is in place. They're an example of why it's a stupid policy.

Who are GW investors really? I've seen the names of the organizations with foreign locations attached for contact, some these are people that do not have easy public information access.

Wayshuba wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Just ordered bits from Warstore, help Neal out as much as we can guys!

I have a strong feeling that this new move by GW is directly aimed at him.

So was the shopping cart thing a few years back, apparently the warstore was pulling in more business then GW online and they had to crush it by claiming using their pictures and product codes violated their IP

That's legal?

No, it's not. Unless GW wants to mark all their images as copyrighted. In addition, as long as a site gives proper recognition to the copyright holder and is not reselling the image itself, it is all still legal.

However, it is against GW rules. So while you could get away with using their images given the above, they can also refuse to sell to you as a result of using their images. That is legal.

And therein lies the conundrum. Sure you could legally use their images. But they can then legally refuse to sell to you.

Just another case of GW wishing it was 1995 all over again.

I'm not really sure about US law, but in the EU, wouldn't that be branded as anti-competitive practices?

 ausYenLoWang wrote:
Apparently this is also outlawing Ebay ( if you buy from a trade account) also bones anyone supplying ebay sellers.

And by outlawing i mean they wont allow supply of product (via trade acc pricing) to someone for it....

The ebay thing is not new. Been that way for years. Ebay is a shopping cart, no onliine shopping carts allowed.

In many ways, this is a restating of the rules they have in place, and a confirmation that a retail account buys product for retail sales, not for distribution to some other channel.

 Eisenhorn wrote:
This is all a direct result of the Chapterhouse lawsuit.
Also the fact they do not show anything early anymore is because of that too.They do not want to say something is coming out early then the 3rd party put out bits ahead of time(think thunderwolves)
This info came from Bothans,just saying

The issues relating to Thunderwolves (and others like them) have nothing to do with some sort of secrecy in the release schedule. GW had long had a habit of putting entries in rulebooks but not releasing models for them (sometimes never releasing a model for them). Third party manufacturers decided to fill the void that GW created and would not fill (still no official Jetbike Seers for the Eldar 6 years after their Codex was released).

The reason they went to secret release schedules was an issue with lagging sales as people would wait for a release that they wanted more than the one that just came out. Wells stated that as their goal clearly.

The attack on the bits sales and other loopholes is against competition for their own web store sales - not due to CHS. Their direct sales channel is down 3% as a portion of their sales by channel (direct, GW Stores, Independents) and no doubt, they see bits sales as one of the reasons as that allowed retailers to skirt the on-line ban under the 2003 terms. Since each percentage that they loose from their direct store equates to about $1.2 million in lost revenue (difference between selling the same product through their own store at full retail versus selling at the discounted price to an independent store) - they have gotten to the point in their cost cutting where they have to look at outside factors they can squash.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

Wayshuba wrote:

 ExNoctemNacimur wrote:

 Ravenous D wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Just ordered bits from Warstore, help Neal out as much as we can guys!

I have a strong feeling that this new move by GW is directly aimed at him.

So was the shopping cart thing a few years back, apparently the warstore was pulling in more business then GW online and they had to crush it by claiming using their pictures and product codes violated their IP

That's legal?

No, it's not. Unless GW wants to mark all their images as copyrighted. In addition, as long as a site gives proper recognition to the copyright holder and is not reselling the image itself, it is all still legal.

However, it is against GW rules. So while you could get away with using their images given the above, they can also refuse to sell to you as a result of using their images. That is legal.

And therein lies the conundrum. Sure you could legally use their images. But they can then legally refuse to sell to you.

Just another case of GW wishing it was 1995 all over again.

I'm not really sure about US law, but in the EU, wouldn't that be branded as anti-competitive practices?

In the EU it is anti-competitive. That is one of the reasons why EU/UK webstores can continue to operate (though they still suffer from the geographic restrictions).

US law isn't as clearly laid out though, and although it could be deemed anti-competitive...someone would need to challenge GW first in order to receive a ruling on the issue.

 WarOne wrote:
Who are GW investors really? I've seen the names of the organizations with foreign locations attached for contact, some these are people that do not have easy public information access.

4 investment funds and Kirby control the majority of shares. You are not going to have an easy time to contact any of them.

I can easily see a point in the near-ish (within 3-5 years) future where local shops elect to stop carrying GW product entirely just to get out of having to deal with their asinine business practices. As much as people may think that 40k and WHFB are the only legitimate big games in town, they're not. Kickstarter is driving up the variety in this hobby, and the internet makes it a lot easier for regional sensations to start picking up steam.

I'm not saying that GW is writing their own epitaph these days, but at the same time, I feel like they're shopping for a tombstone.

They are the only legitimate big games when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi wargaming, but probably not for long. WarmaHordes seems to be coming up fast, and there are other games, like Malifaux and Dust, that have the potential -- if nothing else than for the sexiness of their models.

The problem is that we, as gamers, and the FLGS are in a bind -- do we keep on giving our money to a company that is pretty constantly disappointing or offending us, because we're already invested so much, or do we cut our losses and move on?

Wrong thread. Ignore.

Matney X wrote:
They are the only legitimate big games when it comes to fantasy and sci-fi wargaming, but probably not for long. WarmaHordes seems to be coming up fast, and there are other games, like Malifaux and Dust, that have the potential -- if nothing else than for the sexiness of their models.

The problem is that we, as gamers, and the FLGS are in a bind -- do we keep on giving our money to a company that is pretty constantly disappointing or offending us, because we're already invested so much, or do we cut our losses and move on?

Warmachine (not warmahordes, just warmachine) is already bigger than warhammer fantasy. GW are still the biggest but we have already past the point of other companies becoming legitimately big.

As for the bind, the best thing to do at the moment is finish your current army, buying nothing direct, then stop buying GW. You can still play for a while until the next edition hits but that's still a couple of years for fantasy and 4 for 40k, by then you'll have a very clear idea of if you want to bother or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If the digital version was available in something other than iOS then maybe it'd be worthwhile, but until that happens the print edition would always be better IMO.

You sure you got the right thread there mate?

Too many windows open...

With the new rules against selling items without their original packing I am curious if people think it hurt one of the ways my flgs sells used models.

Basically the owner will sell your stuff on ebay, take a cut and you get the rest in store credit. This is a good service for people that dont have the time to deal with ebay or just do not want to. Because he has sold thousands of items and has such a high rating it is a good way to unload stuff without any hassle.

Anyway I am wondering if he will run afoul of GW's new policy because he sells a ton of used GW products this way.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Warmachine (not warmahordes, just warmachine) is already bigger than warhammer fantasy.

[citation needed].

Personally I think it's a shame, Fantasy is really an enjoyable game (at least until GW buggered it up last edition, I haven't played a lot since then). I don't want GW to die, I just want them to not be arses.