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.

 SickSix wrote:
I love the White Knights calling CHS a 'parasite' or 'leech' or whatever, when GW lost 75% of there claims.

So it's hard to be a 'thief' or 'leech' or 'parasite' of something not owned by someone else.

Just thought I'd point that out.

For my part, I was pointing out the moral ambiguity in the post I quoted; someone saying that one parasite is good, but another is bad, as a function of scale. Admittedly, I was using a darkly humourous reference to the Daily Mail, a despicable British newspaper, which might have made the jape slightly highbrow.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skyth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If GW can write off the attorney fees on their taxes I dont really see that they lost anything at all. If you own an IP you are going to have to defend it, that just a fact of life and the law.

There is so much nonsense posted about how GW does this or that wrong, based on total speculation that the basin of the Pacific Ocean could not contain it all.

You can't write off 100% of fees against tax. The way it works is that the corporation is taxed on its profits. The fees reduce the profit, so less tax is paid. Say the fees are $4,000,000 and corporation tax is 30%. The corporation would pay $1,200,000 less in tax, but it would still have to pay the $4,000,000 fees.

Essentially, GW's final profit is $2,800,000 lower in this scenario than if it had not engaged in litigation. That is clearly a loss. Please note I have made up the figures in order to illustrate the argument simply.

The second point is that by defending "their IP", GW were revealed in court actually not to own chunks of it. That was a another clear loss and a serious mistake.

I would have to look it up to see how it works for tax purposes, but under accounting principles, a successful defence of IP is NOT written off, but rather treated as an asset that is amortized over 10 years. GW could spin that they successfull defended their IP, thus their financials will not reflect the loss.

Typically in tax matters you want to recognize losses right away and defer gains for as long as possible. A 100 dollar loss claimed today saves you more tax than a 100 dollar loss claimed over 10 years. They will most definitely want to claim the expenses as quickly as possible. (whether the rules / HMRC allow them to is another matter).

 SickSix wrote:
I love the White Knights calling CHS a 'parasite' or 'leech' or whatever, when GW lost 75% of there claims.

So it's hard to be a 'thief' or 'leech' or 'parasite' of something not owned by someone else.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I could argue that the judge's ruling was incorrect and that GW did not deserve to lose those claims, but I'm not going to as saying anything positive about GW on this board is akin to social suicide.

 Squigsquasher wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
I love the White Knights calling CHS a 'parasite' or 'leech' or whatever, when GW lost 75% of there claims.

So it's hard to be a 'thief' or 'leech' or 'parasite' of something not owned by someone else.

Just thought I'd point that out.

I could argue that the judge's ruling was incorrect and that GW did not deserve to lose those claims, but I'm not going to as saying anything positive about GW on this board is akin to social suicide.

If you've got a point of view relating the evidence presented as to why you think that, I think people would be interested in hearing it - though you may find one of the more legally knowledgeable chaps may challenge you if they think you've got the nitty-gritty wrong

If the argument is just gut-based, then yeah, I would hold of posting it. Most people posting from the gut have just made themselves look silly.

Mythal wrote:
So little parasites (Trypanosoma brucei) are fine, so long as they're only harming bigger parasites (Socialis beneficia petentes)

I was sort of making fun of those taking such a stark moral position on this. As if GW is some font of original ideas and a model for ethical practices.

SickSix wrote:I love the White Knights calling CHS a 'parasite' or 'leech' or whatever, when GW lost 75% of there claims.

So it's hard to be a 'thief' or 'leech' or 'parasite' of something not owned by someone else.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Absolutely. *If* CHS can be considered a parasite, GW is far, far worse.

I prefer not to paint everything in stark moral terms and accept the verdict. I think too many of GW's claims were granted and expect a couple more to be dropped when the final judgement is all said and done.

You can say positive things about GW, problem is finding said positives.

GW's IP is inspired/ borrowed/ stolen from a variety of sources and one could very well argue that even the composition of all those elements is not new or unique at all.

GW challenged chapterhouse with an IP that is borrowed from all over the place and lost on many accounts, should have lost on more in my opinion, why because most of their claims are for things that existed long before they did, they were used long before they did in similar or exactly the same concepts (heaven forbid roman numeric been used to designate a military unit, who would have thought of that, oh right, Romans) ectr, ectr.

Bit sellers and aftermarket manufacturers exist only because a company willingly allows gaps for them to exist, if GW does not want them to exist they should have fought them on their own game, either licence them improving their image to the community AND provide stricter quality control to their image, or fight them in their own game by either eliminating the gaps, or fill them themselves with a higher quality even cheaper product, they instead chose to use the court to enforce nebulous improbable IP and copyright claims.

CH is no different from every other high detail parts manufacturer out there blessing GANPLA and static modelism.

weeble1000 wrote:

GW never used Tervigon to mark a product for trade, ergo, CHS used a CHS trademark, which has since been infringed by GW.

The Court, however, affirmatively found that GW had used that mark in commerce, along with 60-odd othes...The Court lumped more than one hundred trademark claims into the same intellectually lazy bucket,...

Th

SO... GW producing a Tervigon is a violation of CHS's IP... and people who've heard all the evidence and disagree with this inversion of logic are intellectually lazy. Yeah, right.

Some people thought Dick Turpin was a hero because he stole from nobs, not from them. He was still a crook.

I think Weeble's opinion carries a bit more weight than most on this thread so I wouldn't dismiss him.

weeble is taking a legal point which has value (that you can't trademark an item you don't produce) and employing a reductio ad absurdum.

It's laughable to think you can produce a model, based on someone else's copyright art, using the title of their copyright art, then sue them if they then produce their own model. As a hypothetical argument, it's dubious at best. As a moral argument it's bankrupt. AS a practical argument it is... impractical. No law firm, no matter how zealous or publicity-hungry, would take up such a case.

The whole question of who is in the right in this area is a fascinating, stimulating argument, but to argue that anything that GW is wrong... because they're GW, isn't really that stimulating.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
weeble is taking a legal point which has value (that you can't trademark an item you don't produce) and employing a reductio ad absurdum.

It's laughable to think you can produce a model, based on someone else's copyright art, using the title of their copyright art, then sue them if they then produce their own model. As a hypothetical argument, it's dubious at best. As a moral argument it's bankrupt. AS a practical argument it is... impractical. No law firm, no matter how zealous or publicity-hungry, would take up such a case.

The whole question of who is in the right in this area is a fascinating, stimulating argument, but to argue that anything that GW is wrong... because they're GW, isn't really that stimulating.

Who argue GW is wrong becouse there GW. There wrong becouse the law say so.

Guys.. why does it have to be made so emotive and personal?

If there is to be some valid discourse in reply to Weeble's and Mythos' posts (which they no doubt spent some time composing), let's here it rather than this constant repetition of people saying 'just hating on GW' (not to mention the fething appalling grammar..)

I do like the analogy likening CHS to Dick Turpin though, even though it is about as accurate as Jesus on the cross..

 Pacific wrote:
let's here it

...

(not to mention the fething appalling grammar..)

Not sure if being ironic...

 Pacific wrote:
Guys.. why does it have to be made so emotive and personal?

If there is to be some valid discourse in reply to Weeble's and Mythos' posts (which they no doubt spent some time composing), let's here it rather than this constant repetition of people saying 'just hating on GW' (not to mention the fething appalling grammar..)

I do like the analogy likening CHS to Dick Turpin though, even though it is about as accurate as Jesus on the cross..

Exactly. I even own GW stock, which would make this personal to me because it could impact my real, actual money and I could care less. GW has appalling business practices but since people are psychologically addicted to their product for whatever reason and keep buying it no matter how far up they ratchet the prices, I continue to own stock; the value keeps climbing and I like the dividend payments. If anyone here should be defending GW, it should be people like me that have actual, real money invested in the growth and stability of their company. But hey, junkies gotta make sure their supplier stays around...

 Pacific wrote:
Guys.. why does it have to be made so emotive and personal?

If there is to be some valid discourse in reply to Weeble's and Mythos' posts (which they no doubt spent some time composing), let's here it rather than this constant repetition of people saying 'just hating on GW' (not to mention the fething appalling grammar..)

I do like the analogy likening CHS to Dick Turpin though, even though it is about as accurate as Jesus on the cross..

Well, we're on the internet talking about a hobby we all enjoy, so naturally it's going to get horribly nasty.

I have poor willpower when it comes to this sort of thing, but I've mostly managed to stay away from the discussion past the initial stages as I realise that my bias mostly comes from the way CH was conducting itself here at Dakka prior to the lawsuit and my personal opinion of their product.

I do think it's weird that because of the way the judgement turned out, GW are somehow even MORE evil. As though they knew when they first contacted CH exactly which claims would stand up.

Hopefully some of the really incredible third party manufacturers that have been working away for years are able to get more exposure now. I'm sure we'll also see an increase in low quality crap though.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

GW never used Tervigon to mark a product for trade, ergo, CHS used a CHS trademark, which has since been infringed by GW.

The Court, however, affirmatively found that GW had used that mark in commerce, along with 60-odd othes...The Court lumped more than one hundred trademark claims into the same intellectually lazy bucket,...

Th

SO... GW producing a Tervigon is a violation of CHS's IP... and people who've heard all the evidence and disagree with this inversion of logic are intellectually lazy. Yeah, right.

Some people thought Dick Turpin was a hero because he stole from nobs, not from them. He was still a crook.

My wording was somewhat incorrect. One way to view the facts would be that, yes, in fact if GW had never used the word mark "Tervigon" in commerce. IF that were the case, then CHS's use of it would have priority over GW's use of it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
weeble is taking a legal point which has value (that you can't trademark an item you don't produce) and employing a reductio ad absurdum.

It's laughable to think you can produce a model, based on someone else's copyright art, using the title of their copyright art, then sue them if they then produce their own model. As a hypothetical argument, it's dubious at best. As a moral argument it's bankrupt. AS a practical argument it is... impractical. No law firm, no matter how zealous or publicity-hungry, would take up such a case.

The whole question of who is in the right in this area is a fascinating, stimulating argument, but to argue that anything that GW is wrong... because they're GW, isn't really that stimulating.

But, tellingly, CHS never asserted a claim agaist GW in that regard, even though clearly, based on the facts, CHS certainly could have. But in any case, the sole point is to emphasize that prior use in commerce is an important part of a trademark claim, as prior date of creation is in a copyright claim, and priority date is in a trademark claim.

Weeble1000 summing this mumbo jumbo up very nicely again.

I still find it interesting that 'Tervigon' wasn't in use by GW. Showing that a monolithic structure like GW will be exposed by a much more nimble competitor.

And whilst i would like to think that GW could adapt and become responsive if not pro active about getting its marks in use I don't think the wheels will turn nearly as quickly as we would hope. In fact the ruling as It stands means GW will most likely dig it's heels in and shout 'MINE!' like a small child.

 agnosto wrote:
people are psychologically addicted to their product for whatever reason and keep buying it no matter how far up they ratchet the prices, I continue to own stock

...

But hey, junkies gotta make sure their supplier stays around...

I'm astonished by two things. First, that the moderating team felt this comment was somehow both relevant and acceptable in the context of the discussion. Second, that anyone would think this post reflects the fashion in which rational human beings communicate with one another. Since both of these surprising statements are apparently true, I honestly see no point in continuing this discussion. In the interests of social harmony, I shall attribute this to some form of variance in accepted national cultural norms.

Mythal wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
let's here it

...

(not to mention the fething appalling grammar..)

Not sure if being ironic...

That was just fething appalling spelling

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Weeble1000 summing this mumbo jumbo up very nicely again.

I still find it interesting that 'Tervigon' wasn't in use by GW. Showing that a monolithic structure like GW will be exposed by a much more nimble competitor.

And whilst i would like to think that GW could adapt and become responsive if not pro active about getting its marks in use I don't think the wheels will turn nearly as quickly as we would hope. In fact the ruling as It stands means GW will most likely dig it's heels in and shout 'MINE!' like a small child.

Mind, the Judge ruled that it was, so this isn't a dead set deal, and as far as the court and jury were concerned, GW had used it in commerce before CHS.

Edit: Actually, the judge did not rule that is was used in commerce. The jury found infringement, and use in commerce was an issue before the jury, and the jury must have found priority of use as a valid trademark in order to find infringement.

 skyth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If GW can write off the attorney fees on their taxes I dont really see that they lost anything at all. If you own an IP you are going to have to defend it, that just a fact of life and the law.

There is so much nonsense posted about how GW does this or that wrong, based on total speculation that the basin of the Pacific Ocean could not contain it all.

You can't write off 100% of fees against tax. The way it works is that the corporation is taxed on its profits. The fees reduce the profit, so less tax is paid. Say the fees are $4,000,000 and corporation tax is 30%. The corporation would pay $1,200,000 less in tax, but it would still have to pay the $4,000,000 fees.

Essentially, GW's final profit is $2,800,000 lower in this scenario than if it had not engaged in litigation. That is clearly a loss. Please note I have made up the figures in order to illustrate the argument simply.

The second point is that by defending "their IP", GW were revealed in court actually not to own chunks of it. That was a another clear loss and a serious mistake.

I would have to look it up to see how it works for tax purposes, but under accounting principles, a successful defence of IP is NOT written off, but rather treated as an asset that is amortized over 10 years. GW could spin that they successfull defended their IP, thus their financials will not reflect the loss.

Typically in tax matters you want to recognize losses right away and defer gains for as long as possible. A 100 dollar loss claimed today saves you more tax than a 100 dollar loss claimed over 10 years. They will most definitely want to claim the expenses as quickly as possible. (whether the rules / HMRC allow them to is another matter).

 skyth wrote:

czakk wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If GW can write off the attorney fees on their taxes I dont really see that they lost anything at all. If you own an IP you are going to have to defend it, that just a fact of life and the law.

There is so much nonsense posted about how GW does this or that wrong, based on total speculation that the basin of the Pacific Ocean could not contain it all.

You can't write off 100% of fees against tax. The way it works is that the corporation is taxed on its profits. The fees reduce the profit, so less tax is paid. Say the fees are $4,000,000 and corporation tax is 30%. The corporation would pay $1,200,000 less in tax, but it would still have to pay the $4,000,000 fees.

Essentially, GW's final profit is $2,800,000 lower in this scenario than if it had not engaged in litigation. That is clearly a loss. Please note I have made up the figures in order to illustrate the argument simply.

The second point is that by defending "their IP", GW were revealed in court actually not to own chunks of it. That was a another clear loss and a serious mistake.

I would have to look it up to see how it works for tax purposes, but under accounting principles, a successful defence of IP is NOT written off, but rather treated as an asset that is amortized over 10 years. GW could spin that they successfull defended their IP, thus their financials will not reflect the loss.

Typically in tax matters you want to recognize losses right away and defer gains for as long as possible. A 100 dollar loss claimed today saves you more tax than a 100 dollar loss claimed over 10 years. They will most definitely want to claim the expenses as quickly as possible. (whether the rules / HMRC allow them to is another matter).

Very true, but some times how something is treated is mandated by the tax code and this may or may not go along with accounting practices. Take for instance, inventory validation...If you use LIFO for inventory for tax purposes, you must use it for accounting purposes. (US only...International accounting standards don't allow the use of LIFO.). However, depreciation is specifically defined for tax purposes, but typically doesn't match what is used for accounting purposes. Where intangible assets fall in regards to tax treatment, I'm not sure.

And yet LIFO is still an educational requirement topic in basic accounting

The argument that it is always better to realize losses immediately is somewhat deceptive. Circumstances/environment dictates action in any business looking to function beyond tomorrow. If you expect a revenue gain (not entirely quantifiable but probably) you'd plan to offset that somehow as much as you'd plan for possible losses from a lawsuit or warrantee claims. Plus you've got to keep those books looking nice and tarted up for the shareholders. It certainly is the easiest way, but not necessarily the best. In this case the tax offset from the expense is much less than the amount paid, so they made a net loss (less tax only softens the blow).

Back on topic though, honestly I feel not a lot has come from this case for the market. We haven't seen the market more/less populous than usual by bits-makers and alternate miniature sculptors. Regardless the outcome of this for GW leaves me with a sense of dread, because it may prompt them to resort to even more draconian methods of either enforcing or protecting their IP (regardless of how enforceable they may be). I guess time will tell.

 Ehsteve wrote:

Back on topic though, honestly I feel not a lot has come from this case for the market. We haven't seen the market more/less populous than usual by bits-makers and alternate miniature sculptors. Regardless the outcome of this for GW leaves me with a sense of dread, because it may prompt them to resort to even more draconian methods of either enforcing or protecting their IP (regardless of how enforceable they may be). I guess time will tell.

I honestly think its too soon to tell, a final judgement has yet to be issued, appeals will likely follow, and its only a few weeks out. Unless there were many companies waiting to release models, or new companies waiting to begin trading, as soon as the verdict was made public (unlikely) it will be a few months before anyone looking to capitalise will be in a position to do so.

Personally, I'd keep my powder dry until at least the judge's final ruling, and still take legal advice. I think GW's legal dept has certainly been neutered by the ruling to some extent, but we have seen that a lack of legal backup doesn't always stop them throwing their weight about.

GW will likely be cautious in their appeals - losing in an appeal bears more weight than losing in the initial case.

And the odds do not look good for them in appeals - the judge was, if anything, overly kind to their claims, likely in hopes that both sides would seek settlement if each side had something to lose.

CHS is likely to appeal most of their losses - they have less to lose and more to gain, and a greater likelihood of achieving their goals.

The Auld Grump

Mythal wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
people are psychologically addicted to their product for whatever reason and keep buying it no matter how far up they ratchet the prices, I continue to own stock

...

But hey, junkies gotta make sure their supplier stays around...

I'm astonished by two things. First, that the moderating team felt this comment was somehow both relevant and acceptable in the context of the discussion. Second, that anyone would think this post reflects the fashion in which rational human beings communicate with one another. Since both of these surprising statements are apparently true, I honestly see no point in continuing this discussion. In the interests of social harmony, I shall attribute this to some form of variance in accepted national cultural norms.

I'm astonished by the amount of cherry picking you did to arrive at your contrived level of indignation. The sentiment here being that as a stock-holder, a rational human would assume that I would be more apt to feel angst at GW losing any ground in the eternal war of IP ownership than say, a general hobbyist. The reason here being that I, and other shareholders, have a vested, pecuniary interest in the continuance of not only the status quo but of potentially a tighter rein on the market if possible. My sentiment is that I could care less, the results of this case have not affected my share price to any degree and may or may not impact future dividend payments. Additionally, as a hobbyist I could care less as well because it's a game and getting my proverbial knickers in a twist over who makes a product takes a back seat to what I determine of worth for me to own.

Though poorly worded, the post to which you are referring is actually relevant to the discussion and particularly to the post I quoted from Pacific. If the tongue in cheek manner in which I worded the post somehow offended your obviously delicate sensibilities, that can't be helped but it most assuredly does not required an advanced degree to suss out how it was relevant.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
GW will likely be cautious in their appeals - losing in an appeal bears more weight than losing in the initial case.

And the odds do not look good for them in appeals - the judge was, if anything, overly kind to their claims, likely in hopes that both sides would seek settlement if each side had something to lose.

CHS is likely to appeal most of their losses - they have less to lose and more to gain, and a greater likelihood of achieving their goals.

The Auld Grump

I think an appeal would be a double edged sword in that CHS could wind up losing some ground it gained as well; I think Weeble or Czakk spoke to that danger to some extent in the other thread.

 agnosto wrote:

Mythal wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
people are psychologically addicted to their product for whatever reason and keep buying it no matter how far up they ratchet the prices, I continue to own stock

...

But hey, junkies gotta make sure their supplier stays around...

I'm astonished by two things. First, that the moderating team felt this comment was somehow both relevant and acceptable in the context of the discussion. Second, that anyone would think this post reflects the fashion in which rational human beings communicate with one another. Since both of these surprising statements are apparently true, I honestly see no point in continuing this discussion. In the interests of social harmony, I shall attribute this to some form of variance in accepted national cultural norms.

The sentiment here being that as a stock-holder, a rational human would assume that I would be more apt to feel angst at GW losing any ground in the eternal war of IP ownership than say, a general hobbyist. The reason here being that I, and other shareholders, have a vested, pecuniary interest in the continuance of not only the status quo but of potentially a tighter rein on the market if possible. My sentiment is that I could care less, the results of this case have not affected my share price to any degree and may or may not impact future dividend payments. Additionally, as a hobbyist I could care less as well because it's a game and getting my proverbial knickers in a twist over who makes a product takes a back seat to what I determine of worth for me to own.

Though poorly worded, the post to which you are referring is actually relevant to the discussion and particularly to the post I quoted from Pacific. If the tongue in cheek manner in which I worded the post somehow offended your obviously delicate sensibilities, that can't be helped but it most assuredly does not required an advanced degree to suss out how it was relevant.

If you'd read my post properly, you'd probably understand that the reason I "cherry picked" the offensive portions was that my criticism revolved around said portions - note I said "comment", and not "post". Your observations, as a shareholder in a foreign company, were relevant - which would be why I excised them from my response.

What wasn't relevant was your verbal attack on members of this forum who continue to buy official GW products, calling them "junkies" (note metaphor, not simile). As I said, this strikes me as one of those cultural differences in acceptable social intercourse - presumably, Da Rules only consider something an insult if it doesn't come from someone of your privileged background.

Mythal wrote:

What wasn't relevant was your verbal attack on members of this forum who continue to buy official GW products, calling them "junkies" (note metaphor, not simile). As I said, this strikes me as one of those cultural differences in acceptable social intercourse - presumably, Da Rules only consider something an insult if it doesn't come from someone of your privileged background.

Well, as someone who regularly buys (on behalf of nipper) GW products, and has an overall positive disposition to the company compared to many here, I'd suggest a thicker skin might be handy. This is the interwebz and jokes are allowed.

weeble1000 wrote:


Disagreement on some sensibly reasoned basis would not be intellectually lazy. What I described as intellectually lazy was the Court's reasoning that a defendant being sued by a company more than 20 years its senior who has a defense of fair use meant that all marks asserted by the plaintiff must, ipso facto, be valid marks used in commerce.

That's an argument that has substance, we'll see how the appeal court decides.

nonetheless, I think the suggestions that CHS could sue GW for infringing "their" trademark for Tervigon shows that people's dislike of GW causes them to go into uncomfortable intellectual contortions, to line them up invariably, exclusively as the bad guys.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:
nonetheless, I think the suggestions that CHS could sue GW for infringing "their" trademark for Tervigon shows that people's dislike of GW causes them to go into uncomfortable intellectual contortions, to line them up invariably, exclusively as the bad guys.

You have a good point there, a lot of people around here do seem to jump on any excuse to paint GW as the bad guys. But then I can certainly name a few reasons why I would see GW as the bad guys for perfectly justifiable reasons, halving the contents of boxes and keeping the price the same, suing over things they don't own and 'historical' exchange rate pricing for those of us down under to name a few.
Have they done anything recently to earn any goodwill?

OT but... I'm looking at this to some extent as a parent, who sees GW taking teens away from the X Box and doing something creative and social. They've created this market - even if the current company isn't the same as when it started out.

My nipper has funded an Ork army (bought from Dark Sphere... can't afford full retail) fro eBay sales and had a huge amount of fun, meeting other kids (and older gamers). The staff at around 75% of the stores are terrific - and this is at a time when the High Street is dying. Jessops have gone, Modelzone have gone, I wince at some of the GW prices but I don't want to see their shops shuttered. GW are also creating jobs in the UK economy - which we bloody well need - many of their competitors, more loved on this board, produce in China.

If I lived in Oz, paid those higher prices, and got less benefit from the stores, naturally I'd have far fewer warm feelings.


Anyway... I like Kromlech probably more than i like CHS, better product and more creative, will be good to see more choice and clarity in the market. Looking forward to seeing how the appeal maps out, but if GW get a spanking, I don't see a huge benefit except for those engaged in some warm friendly schadenfreude.

@agnosto

"I could care less" = "I do actually care a bit as there is a lower level of caring that I could attain."

"I couldn't care less" = "I am at the lowest level of caring, barring complete and utter indifference."

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


OT but... I'm looking at this to some extent as a parent, who sees GW taking teens away from the X Box and doing something creative and social. They've created this market - even if the current company isn't the same as when it started out.

This comment perhaps goes a long way to explaining your viewpoint. For the record, GW did not create the market. They started off as a UK seller for US imports. While they did create Warhammer, although one could probably put forward a compelling argument for exactly how much creativity went on, and have, through luck or judgement, gone on to become the major force in the wargame industry, they categorically did not create the market, or even their niche in it. It is a major error to view them as any sort of genesis.

My nipper has funded an Ork army (bought from Dark Sphere... can't afford full retail) fro eBay sales and had a huge amount of fun, meeting other kids (and older gamers). The staff at around 75% of the stores are terrific - and this is at a time when the High Street is dying. Jessops have gone, Modelzone have gone, I wince at some of the GW prices but I don't want to see their shops shuttered

Emphasis mine, you see the total hypocrisy in that statement right?