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.
2013/10/09 00:35:20
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Back in the good old days when GW wasn't a PLC. Unfortunately when a company becomes a PLC it also becomes more focussed on profits.
Believe me, that focus isn't exclusive to PLCs!
It is a truism that happy customers spend more though, which is why GW appearing so totally indifferent to the disillusionment of "us lot" is so baffling and frustrating to me, you don't pander to the crowd who will give you their business regardless, you focus on those that don't, in the hope that you will change their mind, your business will grow and you make more profit!
Agreed. Happy customers spend more money. However we all know how that companies in general have a hard time meeting this philosophy. Pretty much most of the mobile phone companies here in the UK are generally regarded as rubbish. O2 seem to be labelled the best of a bad bunch.
Its up to the other modelling compnaies to hit GW where it hurts. Some people believe they are successful in that regard while others don't.
I think that the current situation is that GW is no longer the five-hundred pound gorilla, merely a three-hundred pound gorilla, in an industry of twenty or so fifty pound chimpanzees, two or three seventy-five pound orangutangs, and more bonobos than I can count....
If the chimps ever form a troupe then the gorilla is in deep... monkey poo?...
GW is still the biggest, but their share of the market is not growing as fast as the market itself is growing.
I now know more wargamers that don't play GW games than ones that do, but more wargamers that play one or another or several GW games than those that play any one of GW's competitors. Warmahordes is getting close, as is Kings of War (mostly because I have a group going - I am biasing my own numbers). The old TSR Battlesystem remains strong, there are some grognards that meet at the Armory to play.
And a number of folks that play a bunch of games - GW included.
The strongest GW games in my groups are not Warhammer or 40K... they are Mordheim and Necromunda....
The logic behind killing free advertising... is most likely flawed. Part of the reason that Warmahordes is expanding is that it has a lively community.
The Auld Grump
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/09 00:44:25
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
2013/10/09 08:22:10
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
2013/10/09 08:26:20
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Veteran forum users are a minority of the overall GW user base but their influence is much greater than their number, due to being older brothers, club members and evangelists for the company's games.
Pissing off the veterans dilutes the valuable, "earned" marketing that GW partly depend on for sales growth.
Thanks, yes that was what I was trying to say, in much fewer words!
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
Can I ask to clarrify what you see as GW enforcing what they can't legally enforce? I'm just looking for an explanation on what we consider to be illegal about this activity.
2013/10/09 08:48:44
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
This actually explains quite alot, I was wondering what happened to all of BoW's 40k content, they really scaled that down.
I guess the good side to this was BoW shifted it's focus onto the more nascent gaming systems, helping them gain a foothold in this industry dominated by GW.
I am a die-in-the-wall 40k fan, however Games Workshop is a huge disappointment.
GW need to take a look at themselves and be influenced by other companies of similar position to them. To name one, the LEGO company.
The Lego company has a large stake in an industry, similar to GW, however they treat their customers with utmost respect, and whenever accused of doing wrong they reply with a very respectful statement, apologizing for any damages and explaining everything clearly.
Sorry about the rant, but I hope BoW can now go on without the burden of a corporate bully.
2013/10/09 08:58:21
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
Can I ask to clarrify what you see as GW enforcing what they can't legally enforce? I'm just looking for an explanation on what we consider to be illegal about this activity.
They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
2013/10/09 09:06:50
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
"Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both. Don't you think you're being just a tiny bit dramatic?
Dead account, no takesy-backsies
2013/10/09 09:14:19
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
PhantomViper wrote: They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
I understood that this part wasn't illegal.
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
Interesting, I think this law was brought up earlier in the thread. Does it apply to this situation? Surely GW can supply to whomever they want since it is their product. I think the trade agreement just says that if you do X, then we will no longer supply you. From what I understood about the EU law was that it stated that you could not apply restrictions to another companies trade in concerns to products they actually have.
EDIT: Had to clarrify my sentence as it was dribble.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/09 09:18:14
2013/10/09 09:21:23
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Bull0 wrote: "Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both.
Why not? Games Workshop's death throes can still cause a lot of damage.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2013/10/09 09:23:46
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
boyd wrote: Every time someone leaks something an image, it's pages of complaints unless there are dedicated fanboys to actually hype something up.
That's because most of GW's releases recently are disappointing. They're either truly awful (everything from Apocalypse 2.0) or mediocre milking of the cash cow (the "dip it in glue and roll it around in purity seals" marine models). There are some good kits (the new Tau pathfinders), but if you look at GW's average output it's not really a surprise that discussion of it would be dominated by negative comments.
I disagree with both of you, actually. While there'll always be someone "being cool" and going on about how crap anything they release is, a good many of their models get near-universal praise. The new Vanguard and Sternguard kits for example. The Witch Elves are another. I don't usually read the GW new-release threads all that much, but even from my infrequent and casual skimming, I've seen a lot of praise for various kits (as opposed to the Centurians or the Apoc Khorne Lord of Skulls thing.)
PhantomViper wrote: They can't legally prevent BoW for presenting rumours and spoilers since is nothing illegal about it, so they inserted the new trade agreement clause to try and shut BoW down through their affiliation with Wayland (by refusing to supply Wayland as long as they are associated with BoW).
I understood that this part wasn't illegal.
And after talking to a few lawyery friends, I'm increasingly convinced that this is illegal in and of itself according to EU trade law...
Interesting, I think this law was brought up earlier in the thread. Does it apply to this situation? Surely GW can supply to whomever they want since it is their product. I think the rade agreement just says that if you do X, then we will no longer supply you. From what I understood about the trade agreement it stated that you could apply restrictions to another companies trade in concerns to products they actually have.
Article 101 is designed to prevent cartels and companies with a very big market presence from using their influence to disrupt free trade within the EU. Section e) is the part that is applicable in this case:
make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
In this case, the secondary obligation which Wayland had to accept was the termination of their association with BoW (or making BoW stop releasing rumours and previews of GW products).
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
There was a case of a rather large Cosmetics company that was trying to prevent the sales of their products through online stores claiming that they damaged their brand name (or some such, I forgot the actual reasoning for the banning), they were found in breach of article 101 and fined and had to continue supplying the internet sellers.
2013/10/09 10:18:16
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Dead account, no takesy-backsies
2013/10/09 10:27:39
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
For me the point is GW is using its bulk to enforce what they cannot legally enforce, altering contracts to do what they cannot do with law is worrying.
Likewise their willingness to endanger or kill any business that does not do what they would like them to do, like selling in other countries, having online stores, use public domain IP that GW wishes to be their, ectr
GW has become a worrying danger for our industry and an expensive burden for the companies and individuals that try to make a living in it.
"Worrying danger for the industry" or "dinosaur which is circling the drain because all their bad decisions are driving customers away"? They can't be both. Don't you think you're being just a tiny bit dramatic?
Never described them as the dinosaur circling the drain, you have to understand that I am not a GW customer for a decade, I loved their products in the past when they were in their prime age of creativity and quality, I am deeply disappointed by their new products that could be some of the best, but simply lack the ambition, the drive and the will to risk, but ultimately their health is irrelevant to me or my enjoyment in the hobby, the most disheartening part is that forgeworld seems to be what GW was in the past, I would wish FW (and black library) was GW, but that's a discussion for another time and another thread.
On the other hand, seen my local game stores struggle because of a massive move of good to best sellers to direct only, seen blogs, forums and companies been legally harassed with unfounded accusations, going out of business because of unethical contractual demands like no online stores (when they keep their) and no "out of region sales" is worrying at least, GW has the size and financial bulk to bring any opposition they want to ruin just by legally battling them, our industry does not companies in the league of GW and I am not sure pro bono representation will spring up every time GW thinks they can claim common domain IP as theirs, or any other excuse to bring them to court.
And the precedent of such behavior is well documented throughout the years, the fact that now that people and companies successfully defended themselves legally they resort to contractual amendments for specific cases is getting even more worrying, our industry could do without the big player harassing it instead of supporting it.
2013/10/09 10:30:46
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
TBH you often see Warren making comments about his personal life, about what's he is doing with his wife and kids, things like that.
Look at what happened with the Chapterhouse case - GW filed a suit on Xmas eve, and it went on for years afterwards. Years of stress, financial concern, extra burden in your life, and dealing with comments from some of the social-misfits that seem to have been speaking for that company - it's one thing saying 'I'm in the right, this is my right to do this', and another to make that sacrifice for a small group of individuals, to take on what would be a giant by comparison. Whether there is any prerogative here for BoW to take things legal or not, I could completely understand why they wouldn't want to.
And ultimately, I think BoW will come out of this quite well. They've managed to resist what must have been the massive temptation to give the middle finger to GW, stop featuring their products altogether, and in doing so have also resisted GW's attempts to create an artificial divide between their products and the rest of the industry. To try and drive a wedge between the fan bases (I mean.. look at the amount of 'discussions' we have on the forum every time GW does something that is difficult for part of the consumer base to swallow). Ultimately, we are all on the same side; we want the best miniatures, the best games, for the best price possible. The events in the OP of this topic are purely the sign of an expensive legal team trying to justify it's existence, and of long term benefit to no-one, least of all GW themselves.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
2013/10/09 10:32:31
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/09 10:35:29
2013/10/09 10:57:36
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/09 10:59:06
Dead account, no takesy-backsies
2013/10/09 11:07:02
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
PhantomViper wrote: Article 101 is designed to prevent cartels and companies with a very big market presence from using their influence to disrupt free trade within the EU. Section e) is the part that is applicable in this case:
make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
Interesting. From what I gathered by watching the BoW video on this they mentioned that they worked with Wayland Games in their studio and were even paid by them. I think we still need to discuss the possibility that this article is not in breach of the EU law. If GW have had their lawyers look at it I don't think they would have had made such a drastic breach of law within their contracts. It would be pretty stupid if they did. They must at least have something to stand on in doing this.
In this case, the secondary obligation which Wayland had to accept was the termination of their association with BoW (or making BoW stop releasing rumours and previews of GW products).
The contract wasn't stating that couldn't do it but it was stating that GW reserves the right to not sell their products to them under such a circumstance. Of course they can't dictate to them that they are not allowed to do it.
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
The trade agreement is what changed. So the conditions of the trade agreement changed and they no longer have to supply them. It would be pretty bad if companies had no say in who they trade with.
There was a case of a rather large Cosmetics company that was trying to prevent the sales of their products through online stores claiming that they damaged their brand name (or some such, I forgot the actual reasoning for the banning), they were found in breach of article 101 and fined and had to continue supplying the internet sellers.
Can you clarrify more on this story? I would like to look more into this so I could do with some campany names of those involved.
1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market: all agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings and concerted practices which may affect trade between Member States and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the internal market, and in particular those which:
(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other trading conditions;
(b) limit or control production, markets, technical development, or investment;
(c) share markets or sources of supply;
(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
(e) make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.
2. Any agreements or decisions prohibited pursuant to this Article shall be automatically void.
3. The provisions of paragraph 1 may, however, be declared inapplicable in the case of:
- any agreement or category of agreements between undertakings,
- any decision or category of decisions by associations of undertakings,
- any concerted practice or category of concerted practices,
which contributes to improving the production or distribution of goods or to promoting technical or economic progress, while allowing consumers a fair share of the resulting benefit, and which does not:
(a) impose on the undertakings concerned restrictions which are not indispensable to the attainment of these objectives;
(b) afford such undertakings the possibility of eliminating competition in respect of a substantial part of the products in question.
I wonder if section 3 here can offer insight in regards to GWs reasons for their trade agreement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/10/09 11:28:03
2013/10/09 11:11:05
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Bull0 wrote: Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
Again, where have you been the past couple of years? CHS's lawsuit is reportedly costing upward of 1 million dollars, do you think that small companies have the ability to support those types of costs on their own?
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
What is you legal background to state that this particular contract term is legal or not under article 101 section e)? I'm genuinely curious to know.
2013/10/09 11:19:29
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
He mentions the "I won't buy X because Y is coming out" issue, but GW does not necessarily profit from this. If X is, say, a PS4, GW does not benefit from people buying a PS4 because they don't know they need to save up money for the next Tyranid release. And they do not benefit from people buying a PS4 and then finding out they don't have any hobby money - or hobby time - to spend on Tyranids.
I would also say that the impulse buy strategy is bad for new players. As he mentioned, a new player isn't around to see the leaks, but they're also not around to buy the limited edition stuff. A strategy that means that new players cannot buy the things they want because it's sold out four days before release is not new player friendly.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
-C.S. Lewis
2013/10/09 11:25:24
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Bull0 wrote: Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties.
Cutting ties does not mean that BoW and WG agree with GW. It simply means that BoW and WG assessed the situation and decided that cutting ties was the best way for them to move forward.
2013/10/09 11:25:58
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
PhantomViper wrote: Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
No offence here but legal matters are not always as simple as someone clearly being in the wrong while another one being clearly in the right. Sometimes it can be a difficult thing to call. The CHS episode isn't evidence that GW were trying to do something completely illegal that they were clearly not allowed to do. They would have had some sort of foot to stand on and a reasonable argument presented in court. Its just that it didn't go their way on that particular day and the court sided with Chapter House rather than GW on this particular issue. In hindsight it was an argument to do with Intellectual Property and whther Chapater House were violating that or not.
I think a lot of people are reading too much into a lot of these legal issues. All you need to realise is that it is a dispute between two companies which will get resolved in court in the end.
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Its not GWs fault that legal matters are costly. However in terms of this trade agreement, considering that it went to every one of their suppliers, if it was completely illegal then it wouldn't take much to sue them and then they would be fined. Everybody thinks that GW just writes these things into their contracts and that they are clearly and completely illegal. If this is the case then GW are opening themselves up to massive fines. I just don't believe they are that stupid.
2013/10/09 11:28:13
Subject: Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
Where have you been the past couple of years? GW isn't above doing "less than legal" things to try and get their way, just look at the CHS case...
And have you watched the BoW video? Even getting a lawyer to look at a C&D and getting their opinion costs several hundred pounds. Do you think that a small operation like BoW or Wayland can afford to get into a legal dispute without some sort of free legal council, even if they are in the right?
Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
And to directly answer your question, no, GW doesn't have the right to supply whomever they wan't in the EU, as long as a trade partner meets the trade agreement conditions, then IMHO, they have to supply them.
Yeah, so as long as a trade partner meets the conditions of their trade agreement with GW, they trade with them. If they violate those agreements, they don't. Note that GW apparently believes BoW publicising news & rumours while "affiliated" with WG constitutes that violation, hence the legal letters to BoW. And apparently, BoW and WG agree, as they've cut official ties. I would like to think if they thought they had legal recourse they'd fight it out with GW, that would be the responsible thing to do anyway.
I mean, I'd be interested to see where this goes, but so far the evidence isn't stacking up
No, the legal letters were before the contract, they tried their best to push their legal might they failed and since the legal threats did not work because there was nothing illegal, they custom made a trade agreement that, was specific to target wayland games/ BOW partnership, they broke their relationship because the contract was made specifically for them not because they agreed they did anything illegal.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its also interesting to see the point of view of another company burned by GWs sudden uncalled for trade agreements.
If that's the real timeline, fair enough, I take the point. It still isn't illegal to change the terms of your trade contracts. People are free not to sign. Underhanded? Sure.
They just might not want to spend thousands just to keep showing sneak peaks
Bull0 wrote: Wayland are a small operation? Didn't they just open some huge gaming space or something? If they can't afford lawyers, that's a serious problem!
Again, where have you been the past couple of years? CHS's lawsuit is reportedly costing upward of 1 million dollars, do you think that small companies have the ability to support those types of costs on their own?
Meaning what exactly? That GWs claim wasn't just thrown out of the court in seconds? It obviously took a long time for the court to make a decision. I think this shows that GW at least had a claim that they could make. If GWs claim was completely ridiculous then it would have been thrown out fairly early in the proceedings. Heck it probably wouldn't have even got to court in the first place.
2013/10/09 11:38:48
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
My 2 pence worth: This is typical GW bully boy rubbish, Wayland can afford lots of Lawyers and could have fought this - however could doesn't mean should.
They'll have weighed up the value of GW turnover and profit against some morale victory against GW. if they fight it GW refuse to supply while the arguments rage on, Wayland lose lots of customers and may get compensation off GW due to loss of trade, maybe .... but enough to cover the loss and hassle... probably not.
This is the easy solution BOW are a separate company anyway so it's just easier to rent an office to list as their registered address (whether they use it or not is another matter and neither here nor there). Basically BOW and Wayland can now carry on as normal as though nothing has happened and it won't make a blind bit of difference apart from some free publicity..... and GW...... well they can jump around doing their victory dance celebrating the fact that they are ar$ehol€$
How do you expect me to know what it is if you haven't painted it! Unpainted models are just proxies for the real thing
2013/10/09 11:47:50
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Notice here that GW actually won on some of the rulings here. Like I said legal issues like this aren't always black and white.
Took note of this bit:
CHS ordered to pay GW damages of $25,000 USD
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/10/09 11:49:01
2013/10/09 11:58:33
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
The bit I took note of was that GW lost over 2/3rds of the claims.
Yes Chapterhouse was found to be in the wrong in some cases but GW were clearly, once again, playing the bully by suing over things like fur and roman numerals.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
2013/10/09 12:10:58
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
I've yet to see anybody give Chpaterhouse any hassle for breaking the law. It looks as if GW did have some sort of claim in regards to this. Enough of a claim to be awarded damages at least anyhow.
The bit I took note of was that GW lost over 2/3rds of the claims.
Yes Chapterhouse was found to be in the wrong in some cases but GW were clearly, once again, playing the bully by suing over things like fur and roman numerals.
So they still won a 1/3rd of the claims. So my point still stands true. Legal matters are never as easy as saying that one party is clearly 100% wrong while the other party is 100% right. They both had claims to make and they both won some and lost some. However of course everybody else is crying about poor old Chapterhouse but its only GW who come off looking like the bad guy.
I rather be sensible and believe that legal issues are never are straightforward as people think they are.
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
2013/10/09 12:24:08
Subject: Re:Beasts of War to Terminate Affiliation with Wayland Games, thanks to GW Legal Threats
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Can't give you details, but it wouldn't be unusual for them to try.
Other companies try it all the time.
Haagen-Dazs sued Frusen Gladje for using "vaguely scandinavian-sounding" words to name ice cream (until they found out that Frusen Gladje, unlike Haagen-Dazs is actually a proper Swedish term).
Spike Lee sued Spike TV because he thought he owns everything containing the word "Spike".
Monster Cables tried to sue Disney (yeah.. that sounds like a plan!) for using their totally unique company name in a movie called "Monsters Inc"
The thing is, once the basic costs of a lawyer or two are negligible for you as a company, or you even have a few on your payroll that need to do something, there's absolutely no disincentive to just giving it a try. The worst that can happen is you lose the case. Big deal. But if you win, you might suddenly "own" a highly generic, highly public concept.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/10/09 12:26:27
Also can you provide a source for your claim that they were suing over fur and Roman numerals? I have a feeling its probably a bit more complicated than that but I would like to read up on it first before making judgements.
Can't give you details, but it wouldn't be unusual for them to try.
Other companies try it all the time.
Haagen-Dazs sued Frusen Gladje for using "vaguely scandinavian-sounding" words to name ice cream (until they found out that Frusen Gladje, unlike Haagen-Dazs is actually a proper Swedish term).
Spike Lee sued Spike TV because he thought he owns everything containing the word "Spike".
Monster Cables tried to sue Disney (yeah.. that sounds like a plan!) for using their totally unique company name in a movie called "Monsters Inc"
The thing is, once the basic costs of a lawyer or two are negligible for you as a company, or you even have a few on your payroll that need to do something, there's absolutely no disincentive to just giving it a try. The worst that can happen is you lose the case. Big deal. But if you win, you might suddenly "own" a highly generic, highly public concept.
Thats why I wanted to read more into it before deciding. So are we all in agreement here? Do we stop buying Haagen-Dazs ice cream for being big bullies?
R version:
