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.

In case you have not been following, GW is on trial against CH on several copy right claims. What they did not expect was CH not backing down and actually challenging GWs Alleged Copy Rights on several items.

At this point the trial is about to begin and is expected to last about 2 weeks. The is a very real possibility of GW actually getting a legal ruling in the US denying its alleged copy rights, stuff like early power armor designs, shoulder pads so on.

What would happen then?.

More aftermarket items, some good some bad. For GW they either join the here and now and restructure or they die and there IP get snapped up be other companies. Who will either market it for the own profit or it will get buried to not compete with there own game.

I think we'll see GW introduce more conversion packs like :



But not too much stuff like individual bits and such.

3rd party people will try and push their wares and GW will continue to send C&Ds out to them and if needed sue them. I also think GW will push for trial in UK courts going forward, where possible.

They could push for trials in UK but to inforce it the trial will have to be in USA. Long story short, WOOT!

 Breotan wrote:


3rd party people will try and push their wares and GW will continue to send C&Ds out to them and if needed sue them. I also think GW will push for trial in UK courts going forward, where possible.

That is kind of the point, they would get a legal precedent precluding them from doing this.

Where are you getting that idea?

The only real outcome of this trial will be some attorneys and lawfirms getting a fat paycheck. Some small specialty caster or a few of them are not going to put GW out of business.

xxvaderxx wrote:
In case you have not been following, GW is on trial against CH on several copy right claims.

You mean hundreds. There are something like more than 100 copyright infringement claims and as many or more trademark infringement claims.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
I think we'll see GW introduce more conversion packs like :

But not too much stuff like individual bits and such.

3rd party people will try and push their wares and GW will continue to send C&Ds out to them and if needed sue them. I also think GW will push for trial in UK courts going forward, where possible.

Not with toys very likely not being protected by copyright in the UK. That would be a really, really bad move on GW's part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:
The only real outcome of this trial will be some attorneys and lawfirms getting a fat paycheck. Some small specialty caster or a few of them are not going to put GW out of business.

Defense counsel is working pro-bono, so I assume you mean plaintiff counsel, who has been getting that 'fat paycheck' for two and a half years now. However, the trial costs alone could easily run into the multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars for GW.

Edit: Imagine, however, that the jury invalidates the 'Space Marine' trademark. How many companies did GW sell an IP license to in the past year alone? Personally, I would be pretty pissed if I had paid to license something that literally has no value.

It'd force 'em to innovate, something Gw really needs right now. If this turns out to be that miracle 'kick up the backside', I'm all for it.

weeble1000 wrote:
Edit: Imagine, however, that the jury invalidates the 'Space Marine' trademark. How many companies did GW sell an IP license to in the past year alone? Personally, I would be pretty pissed if I had paid to license something that literally has no value.

Most of them didn't buy anything 40K related. The only three off the top of my head are a Space Hulk one, the 40K "generic" rights that are out there somewhere (Sega probably has them), and that new Armageddon game.

So if (*cough*when*cough*) this all goes badly for GW do you think they will push on the same way they have always done things and just continue to pretend they own the rights or will we see GW take a step back and learn to think before unleashing their legal department?

I imagine they will still waste no money in trying to shut down anyone who isn't them selling warhammer products but how would they go about it?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Edit: Imagine, however, that the jury invalidates the 'Space Marine' trademark. How many companies did GW sell an IP license to in the past year alone? Personally, I would be pretty pissed if I had paid to license something that literally has no value.

Most of them didn't buy anything 40K related. The only three off the top of my head are a Space Hulk one, the 40K "generic" rights that are out there somewhere (Sega probably has them), and that new Armageddon game.

Well, only three then. That's not so bad. I'm sure Sega would understand.

Sega are a fairly small company after all. Not many people have heard of them.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sega are a fairly small company after all. Not many people have heard of them.

It's a good thing!

weeble1000 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sega are a fairly small company after all. Not many people have heard of them.

It's a good thing!

Don't they produce some niche market game about a porcupine?

I don't think CHS is going to win.

I say that based not on any evidence, not on any merits of the case at all (I think CHS has a very, very strong case).

I say that because I think the courts will never allow an entity as large as Games Workshop to have their business so damaged by what are essentially 3 or 4 guys in a garage, regardless of how right they are. I don't think the courts really do much to serve justice, so much as just continue the status quo, especially when that status quo benefits large corporations.

Maybe Czakk or Weeble or Dogma or Polonius or someone like that will tell me I'm equal parts jaded and wrong, and indeed, I hope I am.

But that's my gut feeling.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:
Don't they produce some niche market game about a porcupine?

Yeah but it's like LINUX only so no one's really heard about it.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think CHS is going to win.

I say that based not on any evidence, not on any merits of the case at all (I think CHS has a very, very strong case).

I say that because I think the courts will never allow an entity as large as Games Workshop to have their business so damaged by what are essentially 3 or 4 guys in a garage, regardless of how right they are. I don't think the courts really do much to serve justice, so much as just continue the status quo, especially when that status quo benefits large corporations.

Maybe Czakk or Weeble or Dogma or Polonius or someone like that will tell me I'm equal parts jaded and wrong, and indeed, I hope I am.

But that's my gut feeling.

I think a Jury is a lot more likely to side with a Garage business, than a big corporation, trying to muscle a smaller one.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think CHS is going to win.

I say that based not on any evidence, not on any merits of the case at all (I think CHS has a very, very strong case).

I say that because I think the courts will never allow an entity as large as Games Workshop to have their business so damaged by what are essentially 3 or 4 guys in a garage, regardless of how right they are. I don't think the courts really do much to serve justice, so much as just continue the status quo, especially when that status quo benefits large corporations.

Maybe Czakk or Weeble or Dogma or Polonius or someone like that will tell me I'm equal parts jaded and wrong, and indeed, I hope I am.

But that's my gut feeling.

It is not a question of GW is going to win. The question is how much GW is going to lose. I have commented on the CH topic on the possibilities of CH winning on most of the suit and GW winning on other aspects of the suit.

There to me are too many tangibles of the case that could go wrong for CH, however my personable opinion is GW has made a terrible mistake in going through this suit in the loss of time, money, and good will of those in their customer base. There best hope is to settle out of court. In this way they could retain some of their IP's intact.

 Sasori wrote:
I think a Jury is a lot more likely to side with a Garage business, than a big corporation, trying to muscle a smaller one.

While I agree with the sentiment, I think a jury is less likely to be able to understand the fundamentals of the case. I think GWS will be able to successfully paint these guys as essentially stealing the company's hard-working property.

I mean, on Dakka Dakka we theoretically know better, and we still have occasional people espousing that sentiment! In some thread the other day, some guy was complaining that there is no Tyranid book because of "IP leeches like Chapterhouse". I forget the exact wording.

No - I think Games Workshop is going to pull out the W, or at least, as Adam said, be able to negate most of the negatives. It's like Marion Barry getting re-elected. We'll all be surprised and disgusted but at the end of the day, that's how it usually goes. We'll have a big show for the serfs that we're really all equal here, but then the court will find for the big corporate, and go back to sipping brandy and smoking cigars in some mahogany panelled back room while snickering about the impertinence of those chaps.

GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

This web site is completely unofficial and in no way endorsed by Games Workshop Limited.
Adeptus Astartes, Battlefleet Gothic, Black Flame, Black Library, the Black Library logo, BL Publishing, Blood Angels, Bloodquest, Blood Bowl, the Blood Bowl logo, The Blood Bowl Spike Device, Cadian, Catachan, the Chaos device, Cityfight, the Chaos logo, Citadel, Citadel Device, City of the Damned, Codex, Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Dark Eldar, Dark Future, the Double-Headed/Imperial Eagle device, 'Eavy Metal, Eldar, Eldar symbol devices, Epic, Eye of Terror, Fanatic, the Fanatic logo, the Fanatic II logo, Fire Warrior, Forge World, Games Workshop, Games Workshop logo, Genestealer, Golden Demon, Gorkamorka, Great Unclean One, the Hammer of Sigmar logo, Horned Rat logo, Inferno, Inquisitor, the Inquisitor logo, the Inquisitor device, Inquisitor:Conspiracies, Keeper of Secrets, Khemri, Khorne, Kroot, Lord of Change, Marauder, Mordheim, the Mordheim logo, Necromunda, Necromunda stencil logo, Necromunda Plate logo, Necron, Nurgle, Ork, Ork skull devices, Sisters of Battle, Skaven, the Skaven symbol devices, Slaanesh, Space Hulk, Space Marine, Space Marine chapters, Space Marine chapter logos, Talisman, Tau, the Tau caste designations, Tomb Kings, Trio of Warriors, Twin Tailed Comet Logo, Tyranid, Tyrannid, Tzeentch, Ultramarines, Warhammer, Warhammer Historical, Warhammer Online, Warhammer 40k Device, Warhammer World logo, Warmaster, White Dwarf, the White Dwarf logo, and all associated marks, names, races, race insignia, characters, vehicles, locations, units, illustrations and images from the Blood Bowl game, the Warhammer world, the Talisaman world, and the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either ®, TM and/or © Copyright Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2010, variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. Used without permission. No challenge to their status intended. All Rights Reserved to their respective owners.

Chapter house would stop having that eyesore on their page.

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

Probably because the relative size of the defendant vs the prosecution has no baring on legal rulings. Being smaller than the person prosecuting you doesn't make you more likely to be in the right.

Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to, but why do so many of you guys want to see GW being damaged by third party re-sellers? It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

 BryllCream wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

Probably because the relative size of the defendant vs the prosecution has no baring on legal rulings. Being smaller than the person prosecuting you doesn't make you more likely to be in the right.

Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to, but why do so many of you guys want to see GW being damaged by third party re-sellers? It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

Is there a jury in this kind of civil matter? A jury of your peers is a jury of little guys. Who do you think they're inclined to side with? (I'm agreeing with bryll).

 BryllCream wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

Probably because the relative size of the defendant vs the prosecution has no baring on legal rulings. Being smaller than the person prosecuting you doesn't make you more likely to be in the right.

Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to, but why do so many of you guys want to see GW being damaged by third party re-sellers? It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

Not if that IP is found not to belong to them. It would mean they're been bullying people away from something that they reasonably had a right to. Also, GW's shenanigans thoughout this process (like trying to hoodwink artists of many years ago into retroactively surrendering ownership rights to artwork) hasn't endeared them to many people.

 Ouze wrote:
I don't think CHS is going to win.

I say that based not on any evidence, not on any merits of the case at all (I think CHS has a very, very strong case).

I say that because I think the courts will never allow an entity as large as Games Workshop to have their business so damaged by what are essentially 3 or 4 guys in a garage, regardless of how right they are. I don't think the courts really do much to serve justice, so much as just continue the status quo, especially when that status quo benefits large corporations.

Maybe Czakk or Weeble or Dogma or Polonius or someone like that will tell me I'm equal parts jaded and wrong, and indeed, I hope I am.

But that's my gut feeling.

On Monday morning, it is not up to the court. It is up to the jury. I feel that this is ultimately what creates justice.

Also, to win, Gw has to win issue after issue after issue after issue. GW has to win ownership of a copyright, GW has to win scope of copyright, GW has to win on substantial similarity, GW has to win on fair use, and GW has to win on damages. CHS needs to win on only one of those issues on each claim to prevail.

 BryllCream wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

Probably because the relative size of the defendant vs the prosecution has no baring on legal rulings. Being smaller than the person prosecuting you doesn't make you more likely to be in the right.

Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to, but why do so many of you guys want to see GW being damaged by third party re-sellers? It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

Bryll, dont you understand that is the question at hand? Do they own the IP or not is what this all boils down to.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW have tried to stop CH's guys from mentioning the fact they are working pro bono so they probably plan on misleading the jury and trying to make it look like 2 competitors going at it rather than the big corporation vs the little guy.

Probably because the relative size of the defendant vs the prosecution has no baring on legal rulings. Being smaller than the person prosecuting you doesn't make you more likely to be in the right.

Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to, but why do so many of you guys want to see GW being damaged by third party re-sellers? It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

Not if that IP is found not to belong to them. It would mean they're been bullying people away from something that they reasonably had a right to. Also, GW's shenanigans thoughout this process (like trying to hoodwink artists of many years ago into retroactively surrendering ownership rights to artwork) hasn't endeared them to many people.

Exactly.
At the start I was (reluctantly) routing for GW. It did seem like an open shut case of copyright infringement. Then lots of other stuff came to light like GW not actually owning those copyrights, trying to steal artwork and (probably) hiding evidence. That fact that their lawyer comes off as a jerk.

Also I'd think a half decent lawyer could turn 'my client is working out of his garage, the prosecutor is a multi million dollar company, he can't be hurting their bottom line' into a half decent defense.

 BryllCream wrote:
Also, why are people so anti GW on this? Yes I get that GW are trying to copyright all sorts of stupid crap that they have no right to

Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

BryllCream wrote: It's morally wrong for someone to be making money on someone else's IP...right?

Not in the least. I see nothing at all immoral about profiting off of someone else's IP. I'm willing to concede that it's arguable that there is something inappropriate about using someone else's IP in such a way that the owner of the IP is harmed financially (eg. Instead of buying Games Workshop's Space Marines, I go to Planet Knockoff's store to buy the same exact thing for less (and this assumes Games Workshop owns the 'Space Marine' IP.))

Further, even in the second case where the use of someone else's IP financially harms the owner, I'm not sure I care. The entire purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new things; in the context of this discussion the creation of new miniatures. I am not at all convinced that we would find ourselves with no new miniatures being created if we were to completely abolish copyright on them. There is a non-trivial cost to put these things into production, but the growth of crowd-funded businesses shows that it's entirely reasonable to transition to a structure where the creators are paid in advance. Cost may increase since the creators would be less able to rely on future sales, which would probably kill windfalls like some Mantic kickstarters or Reaper's Bones, but that's okay.

Note that I am not discussing trademark. Trademark is important for protecting the consumer from knock-off items; nobody wants to spend $5000 on a Sony just to find out that it's really a Sorny. I also accept that I'm a bit extreme in the anti-copyright camp, but I do believe that I have some reasonable arguments to back it up.