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.

First:




Then:
Everyone will use arrows and Roman numbers freely

 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.

Its trial by jury actually, its out of the judges hands.

 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?

Srry dont believe you can own an idea not GW not anyone. And frankly historically speaking, it has not worked so well for those trying to impose you can.

xxvaderxx wrote:

 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.

Its trial by jury actually, its out of the judges hands.

 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?

Srry dont believe you can own an idea not GW not anyone. And frankly historically speaking, it has not worked so well for those trying to impose you can.

Monsanto, Applied Biosystems and quite a few other companies have been quite successful in locking up ownership of ideas.

Tile 17 US Code section 102(b)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

That's what we call 'black letter law.' It does not get any more unambiguous than that. In no case...any...regardless. I think it would be harder to use more assertive phrasing.

Wait Weeble, are you saying that *gasp* two different and unrelated people can have the same thought?

Marines in spaaaaaaace? Not an original concept. I shudder to think that GW will have to use the official term for their spacemen as Adeptus Astartes, and only use space marine as a descriptor and not a proper term.

Mass hysteria, oh the humanity!

They'll either A) Raise prices to make up for their legal expenses and/or B) redesign the kits to be more unique to them.

This is great news!

weeble1000 wrote:
Tile 17 US Code section 102(b)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

That's what we call 'black letter law.' It does not get any more unambiguous than that. In no case...any...regardless. I think it would be harder to use more assertive phrasing.

IP can also be protected by patents, copyright is not the whole deal you know.

Aside from anything else, I shall laugh heartily.

Then, I presume we will see a gak load of cool parts from various bitz manufacturers.

JWhex wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Tile 17 US Code section 102(b)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

That's what we call 'black letter law.' It does not get any more unambiguous than that. In no case...any...regardless. I think it would be harder to use more assertive phrasing.

IP can also be protected by patents, copyright is not the whole deal you know.

But a patent doesn't extend to those things either, it's not there to protect the expression of a fictional idea which is GW's entire case. GW own a couple of patents and haven't claimed infringement.

It's not a patent case. "Patent" would entail physical object/process, such as miniature figures, or plastic injection molding. It's a trade mark/copyright case, meaning it is a case about intellectual property, specific design and imagery.

I'm not TOO up on UK IP laws, but under U.S. law there has to be a certain level of uniqueness, originality, and specificity.

Shoulder pads? No, you can't claim you own all shoulder pads.

Shoulder pads that look identical to Corvus pattern shoulder pads, that's an infringement.

Also, it should noted, under US law it is perfectly legal to make after-market modifying kits and acknowledge the original product they are designed to fit, however they DO need to not trample on the original IP.

"Star Dragon iconography conversion kit designed to work with GW's copyrighted materials" is ok, "Space Wolves conversion kit" is not.

"Tank turret designed to fit GW copyrighted tank designs" is ok, "Leman Russ Turret" is not.


EDIT: I forgot to add, they, obviously, cannot use any GW trades or copyrights, such as all current GW owned Iconography.

I feel like we're going to see... *gasp*

...Another price hike!

maceria wrote:
EDIT: I forgot to add, they, obviously, cannot use any GW trades or copyrights, such as all current GW owned Iconography.

Problem is that GW makes general unproven trademark and copyright claims, like halberds, grenade launchers, all races of Warhammer (including "humans", "elves", "dwarfs", "vampires"). They claim copyright on art, then during the lawsuit ask the artist if he could give them the copyright for free. They even claim copyright on shoulder pads after the US Copyright Office officially denied it. So accepting every GW claim is practically impossible.

JWhex wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:
Tile 17 US Code section 102(b)

"In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

That's what we call 'black letter law.' It does not get any more unambiguous than that. In no case...any...regardless. I think it would be harder to use more assertive phrasing.

IP can also be protected by patents, copyright is not the whole deal you know.

Ummm....inventions can be protected by patents, and only inventions. In order to be patentable, an invention must be new, useful, and not obvious in light of the prior art.

weeble1000 wrote:
Ummm....inventions can be protected by patents, and only inventions. In order to be patentable, an invention must be new, useful, and not obvious in light of the prior art.

In practice, patenting existing life forms is common practice. AFAIK, Monsanto holds the patent on all corn or maize races with a certain minimum of protein, including 10,000 year old races. Someone also patented a breast cancer gene, would like to know if mothers with that gene have to pay fees for their children, as it is a non-sanctioned reproduction of said gene .

Anyway, this is leading us into off topic talk.

Back on topic....

What will happen if/when GW loses these trademarks and copyright?

My suspicion... in regards to actual sales of the products - not much.

In regards to the stock market... GW stock will likely drop.

The 'fortress wall' and 'moat' may make the shareholders feel better... and those shareholders may lose confidence in the value of the stock, but I doubt that losing these protections will have any actual impact on sales.

And not needing to spend moneys on billable hours of a law firm will save GW money.

Something to bear in mind, regarding Chapter House in particular - you need to buy GW products to use the after market items.

Someone buying CH shoulder armor is not costing GW any sales - GW does not sell the shoulder armor any more.

At this point... it is possible that Kirby will find that the fortress wall is constructed from a long line of closely aligned dominoes.... But that the fall of the great Domino Wall will cost GW nothing, aside from several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees....

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

In regards to the stock market... GW stock will likely drop.

I think it remarkably unlikely that anyone in the market even knows that GW has this lawsuit pending. The only way it is likely to come to light is if the cost is so egregious that it makes a notable impact on their filings.

 sourclams wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

In regards to the stock market... GW stock will likely drop.

I think it remarkably unlikely that anyone in the market even knows that GW has this lawsuit pending. The only way it is likely to come to light is if the cost is so egregious that it makes a notable impact on their filings.

Considering the number of forums that it is being bandied about... it would surprise me if at least some of the stockbrokers do not already know.

And if/when GW loses it likely will be brought to the attention of shareholders.

That said... I doubt that much, if any, mid to long term damage will be done.

I do think that GW is likely to continue losing market share, but that will be like unto a souffle slowly deflating in the sun, not like a cake being baked on an artillery range.

The Auld Grump

1) In a desparate bid to prove their usefullness, GW legal sue Pixar over Buzz Lightyear's feet.

2) A twin-eared comet is seen in the skies of Nottingham, but curiously nowhere else.

3) Residents report a high-pitched wailing laugh "Like a million cats trying to play the banjo" from the vicinity of Lenton. All attempts to contact anything in the projected impact zone to let them know that this is a bad idea fail.

4) Tom Kirby gives and interview to the BBC explaining how the court case is "A good thing".

5) Judgment day. The survivors wander the streets, minds broken, gibbering "The Mouse. The MOUSE!" at anyone who will listen.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 sourclams wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

In regards to the stock market... GW stock will likely drop.

I think it remarkably unlikely that anyone in the market even knows that GW has this lawsuit pending. The only way it is likely to come to light is if the cost is so egregious that it makes a notable impact on their filings.

Considering the number of forums that it is being bandied about... it would surprise me if at least some of the stockbrokers do not already know.

And if/when GW loses it likely will be brought to the attention of shareholders.

That said... I doubt that much, if any, mid to long term damage will be done.

I do think that GW is likely to continue losing market share, but that will be like unto a souffle slowly deflating in the sun, not like a cake being baked on an artillery range.

The Auld Grump

As clams has said, I doubt GW stock price is going to drop. While it is a copyright case, it's not a huge one at that, and it's unlikely going to impact their EBITDA or cash flow in any significant way, since they're giving ground to small, independent studios as opposed to a huge competitor like we see in the Apple vs. Samsung cases.

The only real reason that I can see GW stock taking a hit is due to their own over hyped 'fortress wall' and 'moat' (what I like to call the WTF defensive strategy).

The problem is that they have made that 'fortress wall' and 'moat' a selling point for their stock.

A stupid thing like that can come and bite you in the arse - look at Jobs and his 'aikido move'. (Coming back to bite Apple... today, actually. )

We will see... I very much doubt that this will be a long trial.

The Auld Grump

Personally, I think it will depend on the scope of the failure.

If the ruling is along the lines of "you can't stop people making bits to fit your products unless they are a blatant imitation of x, y or z" where x,y and z are various GW designs they have proven ownership of, I doubt it will be that significant, other than 3rd party manufacturers breathing a bit easier.

If however the outcome is more along the lines of "you are suing for these marks, yet you have been unable to prove you own them, therefore in prosecuting this case you have actually kicked the hornets nest and demonstrated you don't control as many of your copyrights and trademarks as you claim" That could open the floodgates for many more alternative sculpts, which could seriously dilute their sales.

I suspect they'll land somewhere in the middle and carry on largely as before they started all this nonsense, albeit perhaps with slightly toned down legal shenanigans.

Especially since the judge gave them each what - 20 hours?

Long story short guys...

Try telling motorhead Joe that he CANT put a Hurst stick shift on his Camaro and Motorhead Joe crams your words down your face.

We live in AMERICA.

GW tried this crap back in the day when they tried to not sell to distributors in America and tried to make everyone buy DIRECT.

They lost their arses..
They will lose this one too.

'Murica! feth yeah!

 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.

I think the Obama administration passed laws preventing that due to a number of American journalists getting sued for libel in Britain by international companies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azreal13 wrote:
Personally, I think it will depend on the scope of the failure.

If the ruling is along the lines of "you can't stop people making bits to fit your products unless they are a blatant imitation of x, y or z" where x,y and z are various GW designs they have proven ownership of, I doubt it will be that significant, other than 3rd party manufacturers breathing a bit easier.

If however the outcome is more along the lines of "you are suing for these marks, yet you have been unable to prove you own them, therefore in prosecuting this case you have actually kicked the hornets nest and demonstrated you don't control as many of your copyrights and trademarks as you claim" That could open the floodgates for many more alternative sculpts, which could seriously dilute their sales.

I suspect they'll land somewhere in the middle and carry on largely as before they started all this nonsense, albeit perhaps with slightly toned down legal shenanigans.

And now you're just making me hopeful I can finally get Obari style crisis suits.

 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.

Where they could quote Alan Merritt's statement in a court of law of "we make Toy Soldiers" which then makes it clear that the figures are covered by design rights (30 years) rather than copyrights, which means the older stuff is going to start falling into the public domain...
http://www.solegends.com/citadel/index.htm

Exactly. I am reminded of the fact that here in Britain, Carlton Television own the copyright to the series "Space: 1999" - a Gerry Anderson show with live actors, not puppets. The Eagle Transporter design as used in that show is also owned by Carlton. But the original studio models contained parts from the Airfix "Saturn V" rocket kit in 1:144 scale. Could Airfix sue Carlton for using their bits? Hell, No! Once somebody at Carlton had bought those kits, they have the right to do what the hell they like with them except make exact copies of them. Using them in a design of your own is not actionable. The same kit was used to make the Federation Pursuit ship in the series "Blake's 7". Airfix also have no case against the BBC.

So far as Chapterhouse goes, it seems to me that they cannot be actioned for their Storm Raven conversion, as it makes the GW model a different design. As to the things like chapter specific drop pod doors or rhino doors, I would not presume to say. Maybe they can make a case, but I believe they would have a stronger one if they'd done only the iconography and left the customers to glue them to the doors supplied with the kit.

And I believe that in Britain, "Industrial design" copyrights run out after 15 years, so if GW lose this one, they may find out that more of their stuff is in the public domain than RTB01 marines and rinos!

 Conrad Turner wrote:
Exactly. I am reminded of the fact that here in Britain, Carlton Television own the copyright to the series "Space: 1999" - a Gerry Anderson show with live actors, not puppets. The Eagle Transporter design as used in that show is also owned by Carlton. But the original studio models contained parts from the Airfix "Saturn V" rocket kit in 1:144 scale. Could Airfix sue Carlton for using their bits? Hell, No! Once somebody at Carlton had bought those kits, they have the right to do what the hell they like with them except make exact copies of them. Using them in a design of your own is not actionable.

THe specifics of what you say are true, but copyright law is much more complex than that. Especially considering Airfix didn't actually design the Saturn V rocket (that was Dr Strangelove, wasn't it?)

Similarly many Star Wars spaceships are kit bashed. Mos obvious example is the rear of a Y-Wing which is simply the engine deck from a German Panther tank, or similar vehicle.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Conrad Turner wrote:
Exactly. I am reminded of the fact that here in Britain, Carlton Television own the copyright to the series "Space: 1999" - a Gerry Anderson show with live actors, not puppets. The Eagle Transporter design as used in that show is also owned by Carlton. But the original studio models contained parts from the Airfix "Saturn V" rocket kit in 1:144 scale. Could Airfix sue Carlton for using their bits? Hell, No! Once somebody at Carlton had bought those kits, they have the right to do what the hell they like with them except make exact copies of them. Using them in a design of your own is not actionable.

THe specifics of what you say are true, but copyright law is much more complex than that. Especially considering Airfix didn't actually design the Saturn V rocket (that was Dr Strangelove, wasn't it?)

Airfix have the copyright on the shape of the parts used in the kit, the way the LEM seperates into two parts for example. It is this that makes it so easy to copy those parts if you are attempting to build a studio scale Eagle. Most of the parts are geometric shapes with bits from the Saturn V and other kits glued on. If you used a Revell Saturn V, the LEM may be built differently and you would end up with a slightly different look.

I was referring to the design of the components in the kit, not the overall design of the Saturn V, which obviously is not an Airfix design. So if Airfix cannot claim copyright infringement from either the BBC or Carlton for using their kit bits in an original design, surely GW cannot claim copyright infringement on stuff that Chapterhouse sell as either a) an original design of their own (Tau walker) or b) a set of resin parts designed to be used with an existing GW kit to make it a new design (Storm Raven extra panels to make it longer and 'tru scale'. However, selling chapter specific rhino doors is something that Forgeworld already do so even if chapterhouse are selling doors with iconogarphy that GW don't sell and it's their own chapter, they are still selling 'rhino doors'.