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.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:


Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.

I quite like how you brought something from pages past and completely ignored my reply on that subject too.

since you like short versions, yes they had similar problems in the past and worked their internal security, not chased people.

I saw your reply. My response is one of mere cynicism when it comes to corporate behaviour.

It's worth quoting myself to point out the error in this kind of argument.

It's worth pointing out that GW suffers from deficits that, to my knowledge, no other major game producers suffer from: the nature and extent of their legal overreach, which can fairly be characterized as unethical, possibly going so far as illegal.

The closest correlate would be the incident where PP asked the developer of iBodger to stop development on his app, as they were coming out with their own Warroom app. But taking the app down was the voluntary actions of a fan, not a reaction to a C&D letter.

GW, by contrast, can credibly be described as doing things like: fabricating evidence in a Federal Litigation, subornation of perjury, and abusing the provisions of the DMCA.

Whatever one thinks of Corvus Belli, Privateer Press, Mantic or whatever*, chances are your quarrels with them are based on aesthetics or other game based problems. With GW, there is a credible allegation that they are engaged in systematic abuse of the legal system. It's a whole other level of problem with a corporation.

Follow the link for references.

For those interested in more detailing on GW's perfidy, simply scroll through the linked thread, as most of my posts in it are devoted to detailing (with supporting documentation) GW's history of improper, unethical and indeed borderline illegal activities (sometimes not even borderline).

 DarthOvious wrote:

Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.

At the end of the day companies suck, but we need them to live our lives. I've seen way much worse than this. For instance good example here..

There are different levels of sucking..! CB listen to fan feedback, do everything they can in terms of special events for their fans, even produce things specifically if they have been asked for (the recent art books, the 'wulver girl' to give two examples). When another forum wanted to start up, not only did they give them permission, they helped them out with exclusives and artwork to help pull people to the site. They've actually done similar things with BoW, and at every step have tried to maintain that connection with the hardcore element of their fans.

Contrast with GW, who rather than embracing modern social media and communications, actually have less now than they had 10 years ago (when they at least had a forum); at least half a dozen fan sites and blogs have been forced to close down, threatened or altered due to the threat of legal action over the past few years. They've cancelled their official tournaments, scrapped games days and reduced the quality of the ones that are still run. They've closed down their facebook page - other than sending an email or letter off into the void (yes... I've tried this following the rest of world trade ban, which effectively stopped me from buying GW stuff when I was abroad, never got an acknowledgement) there is no way at all to contact the company or any route whatsoever for feedback. For something so niche, so personal, as a tabletop wargaming hobby, that is unconscionable in this day and age. Especially when you compare it to practically every other company in this industry.

Now I know an element of this comes down to GW not needing to do this.. they are after all the biggest player, and as has been said it's possible that their sales strategy just doesn't recognise anyone who has followed them for more than a few years. But, that's small consolation for those that have - as it stands, if you look at the fan discussion and general community atmosphere, no prize for guessing which groups of fans are happier.

I agree with your final comment, there are examples a thousand times worse, even than the one you posted, that make GW look like saints by comparison. But, this forum is for focusing on the actions of companies within the wargaming industry. If this kind of story comes up, then it's only fair to have a rational discussion about it and its implications - as in this case, we would all be better off if GW hadn't made this advance towards BoW, and it's important to recognise that.

Simple answer - stop buying their stuff. If you continue to purchase GW products then you have no right to complain about how they conduct business, because you are directly responsible. Any excuse you try to dream up to justify your addiction will never change that fact. You don't have to stop playing the game if you enjoy playing the game, just stop buying their stuff.

 Buzzsaw wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:


Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.

I quite like how you brought something from pages past and completely ignored my reply on that subject too.

since you like short versions, yes they had similar problems in the past and worked their internal security, not chased people.

I saw your reply. My response is one of mere cynicism when it comes to corporate behaviour.

It's worth quoting myself to point out the error in this kind of argument.

It's worth pointing out that GW suffers from deficits that, to my knowledge, no other major game producers suffer from: the nature and extent of their legal overreach, which can fairly be characterized as unethical, possibly going so far as illegal.

The closest correlate would be the incident where PP asked the developer of iBodger to stop development on his app, as they were coming out with their own Warroom app. But taking the app down was the voluntary actions of a fan, not a reaction to a C&D letter.

GW, by contrast, can credibly be described as doing things like: fabricating evidence in a Federal Litigation, subornation of perjury, and abusing the provisions of the DMCA.

Whatever one thinks of Corvus Belli, Privateer Press, Mantic or whatever*, chances are your quarrels with them are based on aesthetics or other game based problems. With GW, there is a credible allegation that they are engaged in systematic abuse of the legal system. It's a whole other level of problem with a corporation.

Follow the link for references.

For those interested in more detailing on GW's perfidy, simply scroll through the linked thread, as most of my posts in it are devoted to detailing (with supporting documentation) GW's history of improper, unethical and indeed borderline illegal activities (sometimes not even borderline).

Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.

 Pacific wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

Now, now. Corvus Belli are perfect little angels who would commit no wrong.

At the end of the day companies suck, but we need them to live our lives. I've seen way much worse than this. For instance good example here..

There are different levels of sucking..! CB listen to fan feedback, do everything they can in terms of special events for their fans, even produce things specifically if they have been asked for (the recent art books, the 'wulver girl' to give two examples). When another forum wanted to start up, not only did they give them permission, they helped them out with exclusives and artwork to help pull people to the site. They've actually done similar things with BoW, and at every step have tried to maintain that connection with the hardcore element of their fans.

Contrast with GW, who rather than embracing modern social media and communications, actually have less now than they had 10 years ago (when they at least had a forum); at least half a dozen fan sites and blogs have been forced to close down, threatened or altered due to the threat of legal action over the past few years. They've cancelled their official tournaments, scrapped games days and reduced the quality of the ones that are still run. They've closed down their facebook page - other than sending an email or letter off into the void (yes... I've tried this following the rest of world trade ban, which effectively stopped me from buying GW stuff when I was abroad, never got an acknowledgement) there is no way at all to contact the company or any route whatsoever for feedback. For something so niche, so personal, as a tabletop wargaming hobby, that is unconscionable in this day and age. Especially when you compare it to practically every other company in this industry.

Now I know an element of this comes down to GW not needing to do this.. they are after all the biggest player, and as has been said it's possible that their sales strategy just doesn't recognise anyone who has followed them for more than a few years. But, that's small consolation for those that have - as it stands, if you look at the fan discussion and general community atmosphere, no prize for guessing which groups of fans are happier.

I agree with your final comment, there are examples a thousand times worse, even than the one you posted, that make GW look like saints by comparison. But, this forum is for focusing on the actions of companies within the wargaming industry. If this kind of story comes up, then it's only fair to have a rational discussion about it and its implications - as in this case, we would all be better off if GW hadn't made this advance towards BoW, and it's important to recognise that.

I agree with a large portion of your post. Its just in my experience the bigger the company, the more corrupt it gets. All due respect to others like Corvus Belli, I'm sure they do a good job for their fans and make good models for them but once they do get that overwhelming support I don't see them turning out differently. Partly because big companies might have the need to order to protect themselves. There are good food companies who do a good job, even fast food. However you take a look at McDonalds and then see what they do. They include additives in their food to make them more addictive, so customers will come back and buy more. However McDonalds still chug away as the largest company in the world without much damage to their reputation.

Sure I admit that GW has done some pretty questionable things, but I think its the nature of big business. The bigger you get, the more necessary for it to protect its IP, sometimes with underhanded tactics. Say what you want about Chapterhouse, but at the end of the day they were making items for Games Workshop products and they were taking a percentage of the market share away from them. They directly advertised on their site that their stuff was specifically for GWs products. GW might have used some underhanded tactics in court (not sure yet, still need to read the transcripts) and I admit that lying in general is a bad thing, but it seems to me that they were pulling some fast ones in order to protect their IP. They look desperate, as if to say that the kind of competition that companies like Chapterhouse offer is the kind of competition that will hurt them greatly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person with concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedleh wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.

Those things are for the courts to decide. Despite all of GWs illegal activity during that case as presented by some people here it doesn't look like the courts dealt with it by punishing GW in any significant manner. So I'm wondering why and I need to have a look at the transcripts at some point.

The reason why I linked to fair trading and standards is because people continually post that they are the big bully boys of the market who are driving competitors out of the business. Well that's a concern to notify the office of fair trading and standards about in my opinion. I'm only trying to help those with complaints contact them to ask them what they can do.

gangreen wrote:
GW has always used this business models, I can go back over 20 years here, to what some people believe was the good old days of GW, but even then this sort of thing happened.

Like this, you run your successful LFG selling GW or citadel as it was then, the area managers noted where there was good sales levels and suddenly a GW store opened in that town and the LFG is either told they can no longer sell GW or has to buy a lot more product, which it can't afford, this usually led to death of LFG. This happened to several were I lived.

What is happening now is just a extension of this, and GW wont change because it has worked for over 20 years

You are of course, entirely correct. Delivery times of product were also effected, though you could always guarantee that the competing GW store would have the new releases the morning they opened, while the competing store would often still be waiting on their deliveries. GW started down this way road back when the now-canonised Bryan Ansell was in charge, even before Kirby and co.

It's just GW abusing their market position again to extend their paranoid control over everything about their product. Ideally they'd like that no one was able to publish anything about them, they want to be the sole source of all information about their product and that people come to their website to buy product. This is why their trade conditions with retailers grow ever more demanding preventing where things can be sold and heaping other things upon them with threats of being cut off at a moment's notice. It's either that or GW being entirely self serving and making sure that items produced in limited quantities go to their shops and web store first, again putting the independents in a bad spot, or maybe just GW dragging their feet about sending stuff out which results in traders not getting new stock on time. Unfortunately GW is a big enough part of the market place that few independent retailers can do without them, so they have to deal with the devil. And this puts GW in a powerful position. Any time they like they can cut off a shop citing any one of their suspicions and torpedo that business. Usually they settle for doing business but in a manner which abuses their advantageous position.

I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.

 Daedleh wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

 Allod wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
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.

That was Pierre Fabre Dermo-Cosmetique, which was found to be violating said Article 101 by restricting online sales of their products altogether, a practice adopted by several large French manufacturers at the time. The ECJ ruling is C-439/09 from Oct 13th 2011.

And it has nothing to do with this case, as it was about a company trying to prevent online sales altogether.

Yes, I only posted it as an example that companies are not allowed to only sell to whom they wan't, apart from that it has nothing to do with this particular case.

 Allod wrote:

As much as it pains me to say it: From an Austrian lawyer's POV (can't really comment on the UK), which includes European Law, GW's handling of the matter is not in breach of law. Whether GW's accusations and eventual punitive measures towards Wayland are justified is indeed a "contractual matter".

Also, please be aware that GW's view of BoW as a subsidiary of Wayland might be wrong, but it is well in their rights to hold that view - if a conflict arises out of this, it is up to a court to decide whose interpretation (GW's or Wayland's) has more merits, "legality" as most people understand it does not come into play here.

Is GW's interpretation of Wayland's relationsh with BoW bullying? Yes, personally, I'd say so. Is it illegal? Surely not.

All that being said, it never ceases to amaze me to what lengths GW will go to alienate their fanbase.

Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?

Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?

Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.

 Bull0 wrote:

 Daedleh wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Well if GW are engaging what can only be described as clearly illegal behaviour then I'm sure soon enough they will be fined or chastised for it in some fashion. Either by the courts or by fair standards and trading.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/

The OFT's mission is to make markets work well for consumers. We achieve this by promoting and protecting consumer interests throughout the UK, while ensuring that businesses are fair and competitive.

I suggest any British person who concerns to write letters to them detailing what concerns they may have.

The OFT don't deal with civil legal matters which are what GW are falling afoul of. Someone would need to stand up to GW and take them to court, ala Chapterhouse. Given everything that Chapterhouse went through (including the owners saying that they wouldn't have gone through it if they'd have known the personal toll it would take) and that Chapterhouse had pro-bono representation, I doubt anyone is going to be doing that any time soon.

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

Thats pretty much what I'm saying. If people here in the UK really think that GW is throwing their weight around unfairly then contact the OFT. Have them deal with it since thats their Job. If they are not doing anything about it then its because they either don't know what GW is up to or don't think that what GW is doing anything illegal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

Yes, I only posted it as an example that companies are not allowed to only sell to whom they wan't, apart from that it has nothing to do with this particular case.

Fair enough. I'm of the mind that companies should be able to sell to whoever they want. If they make the product then they should have that say. Without them the product would not exist in the first place.

Its nice to have someone with actual experience in European law in here but could you expand on this a bit please?

Why do you say that the contractual restriction due to Wayland's association with a 3rd party (BoW) is a contractual matter and not in violation of section e)?

Because it seems like that section was written specifically for a case like this, a supplier is using its dominant position to enforce a contractual restriction on a client that would put them at a severe competitive disadvantage in the market place unless they accept supplementary obligations that have no connection to the contract itself.

There were exceptions in the law stated under section 3. Perhaps GW can claim under one of the exceptions of the law. Of course I am not saying that this is fact but just covering it as a possibility.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.

I agree with some of your feelings about GW - their attempted copyright landgrab on the illustrators was both incompetent and obnoxious.

But... the entire characterisation on here is simply a category error. GW are typical, not toxic. GW are proprietorial about 40k - because they invented it. (Yes, of course other people's work contributed to it).

As for Beasts of War - well, it is simply a contractual matter, in black and white. Whether or not you agree with how GW publicise (or don't publicise) their own products, that's their prerogative. Likewise, Chapterhouse were openly using their brands - there was always going to be a legal showdown.

If BoW want to publish news, they should learn about Fair Use, and stay within that, then if GW attempt to intimidate them beyond that point, they should simply tell them to get stuffed. I've dealt with similarly intimidating companies in the past - once of them a much-loved brand - and if you make it clear on what basis you're using material, there is simply nothing they can do.

THe comparison with Apple is a fairly apt one, except GW aren't wilfully obscure about their supply chain, and don't employ workers in near-slavery conditions. Although I admit that working in some of those nasty malls in places like Bromley does infringe on yer human rights.

Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I've said it before, the word I use to describe GW is toxic. Toxic to this hobby and retailers, with their endless legal threats to fan sites and small businesses, their underhanded means of enforcing their legal threats as revealed in the CHS case, their unhealthy approach to managing independent retailers and their general aggressiveness towards the community. They are too big and too nasty for a niche hobby.

I agree with some of your feelings about GW - their attempted copyright landgrab on the illustrators was both incompetent and obnoxious.

But... the entire characterisation on here is simply a category error. GW are typical, not toxic. GW are proprietorial about 40k - because they invented it. (Yes, of course other people's work contributed to it).

As for Beasts of War - well, it is simply a contractual matter, in black and white. Whether or not you agree with how GW publicise (or don't publicise) their own products, that's their prerogative. Likewise, Chapterhouse were openly using their brands - there was always going to be a legal showdown.

If BoW want to publish news, they should learn about Fair Use, and stay within that, then if GW attempt to intimidate them beyond that point, they should simply tell them to get stuffed. I've dealt with similarly intimidating companies in the past - once of them a much-loved brand - and if you make it clear on what basis you're using material, there is simply nothing they can do.

THe comparison with Apple is a fairly apt one, except GW aren't wilfully obscure about their supply chain, and don't employ workers in near-slavery conditions. Although I admit that working in some of those nasty malls in places like Bromley does infringe on yer human rights.

Just wanted to say this was a good comment and that I agree with.

I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.

[quote=Bull0 556039 6134359 717ecee123a3c8dd0e7b7e6ac225e079.

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

I'm wondering if GWs actions count as actions to create a 'coercive monopoly' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercive_monopoly

Why do I suggest this? GW is able to change its TOC such that it a) shuts down competition with its own shops b) shuts down competition with its own online store and c) in doing both of those it also acts to hamper competing products sold by those competing stores.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.

It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedle wrote:

Bull0 wrote:

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.

Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013

Sigh,

I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:

Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.

So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.

Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.

 Bull0 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.

It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedle wrote:

Bull0 wrote:

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.

Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013

Sure WG can stop trading with them. But the issue here is that they have a historical business model that is based on what was, back in the day, better terms. Yes there are other products out there now that they can sell, but the market doesn't match that of the GW stuff. So WG can stop trading with them, but first they need to diversify their customer base and become less reliant on GW (which I would guess is what any store should be doing if a change in TOC coudl put you out of business).

 dr_ether wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
I feel the point ignored is that it became a "contractual matter" after the legal threats didn't pass, BOW know and used Fair Use, so GW chose to use a contract update to enforce what they wanted and the law did not allowed them to.

It's not being ignored; we all know that's what happened; WG are still welcome not to trade with GW if they consider their terms unfair. That should've been where the story ended ten pages ago, but we've been going round the houses talking about how immoral and dirty it is, how it's bad like the CHS lawsuit was bad, and other total irrelevances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedle wrote:

Bull0 wrote:

Thing is, this is the system we've got. It's based on hundreds of years of social development. It isn't perfect, but disengagement is not the answer. "We're going to throw accusations around but we aren't going to back them up with a lawsuit because that's too costly" is the kind of thing that makes me switch off really quick.

It's a different area of law. It's like going to the police to sort out your divorce. If GW were doing anything blatently in violation of trading standards, such as falsely advertising their products as the best in the world, then the OFT is where you'd go. Even IF thr OFT dealt with this sort of case, it would need to be the aggrieved party who lodged the complaint, not the customers.

Bull0 - not mentioning the OFT in this thread since 2013

Sure WG can stop trading with them. But the issue here is that they have a historical business model that is based on what was, back in the day, better terms. Yes there are other products out there now that they can sell, but the market doesn't match that of the GW stuff. So WG can stop trading with them, but first they need to diversify their customer base and become less reliant on GW (which I would guess is what any store should be doing if a change in TOC coudl put you out of business).

Emphasis on "historical business model" there. Note that there are plenty of people competing with GW just fine - PP, Mantic, etc - but they have their own product lines.

You miss the point. WG is not yet in a position to just drop GW products, because to much of their revenue source is based on those products, due to the historical, near monopoly, GW had on the niche hobby of scifi/fantasy wargaming.

The presence of other products does not change that fact over night, nor immediately change WG revenue streams. The only thing they can do is promote as many other products as possible to make their revenue diverse.

tl;dr

WG can't just drop GW products over night because their business and customer base in entrenched in a predating business model.

 DarthOvious wrote:
Sigh,

I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:

Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.

So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.

Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.

It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.

I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.

And once again from the main document.

Regarding the products listed in paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 of Chapterhouse’s proposed judgment, as to which Games Workshop voluntarily withdrew its claims (for numerous reasons, including business considerations and a desire to simplify and shorten the case) if these products are to be listed in a judgment, the judgment should also accurately reflect that, even though the claims were withdrawn, they were withdrawn voluntarily. One of them (Item 110 on the claim charts) was
withdrawn without prejudice. However, as these products are already identified in previous consent judgments already entered by the Court, there is no reason to include them again in this Judgment and needlessly complicate it. If they are listed, separate provision should be made to clarify that Item 110 was withdrawn without prejudice and that all of the products were withdrawn voluntarily (as explained in the Court’s prior orders and grant of summary judgment.

I'm not missing that point, I'm just struggling to see why it matters? That's business.

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Sigh,

I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:

Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.

So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.

Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.

It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.

I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.

See the part where I said it was from THE MAIN COURT DOCUMENT? Yes I know caps are impolite but I thought I would it clear this time since you missed it the first time.

It matters because GW is taking advantage of how their previous near monopoly in a niche industry has meant stores are too reliant on their products.

This is why arguments that 'WG should just stop trading with GW', are simplistic, naive, and miss the historical reason for why WG and others can't just do that, and how GW knows this and uses this to their advantage. Such as changing TOCs so that it benefits them because they know stores can't just drop their products immediately.

So while it is business, it is not business based on the quality of a product, but on a historical financial dependency that they helped establish.

Furthermore, just by reading up on some definitions about a monopoly, from wikipedia

Monopolies derive their market power from barriers to entry – circumstances that prevent or greatly impede a potential competitor's ability to compete in a market. There are three major types of barriers to entry; economic, legal and deliberate.[7]

[...]

Deliberate actions: A company wanting to monopolise a market may engage in various types of deliberate action to exclude competitors or eliminate competition. Such actions include collusion, lobbying governmental authorities, and force (see anti-competitive practices).[citation needed]

Now what anti-competitive practices are those then?

Refusal to deal (also known as a group boycott) is one of several anti-competitive practices forbidden in countries which have restricted market economies. For example:
Agreements involving competitors that involve restricting the supply of goods are prohibited if they have the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition in a market in which the businesses operate.
—Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, Refusal to deal [1]
"Refusal to deal" includes any agreement which restricts, or is likely to restrict, by any method the persons or classes of persons to whom goods are sold or from whom goods are bought
—The Competition Act, 2002 (India) S4-d

So it is anti-competitive to act in the way GW does, to refuse trade, if they knowingly understand that doing so collapses a business that has a historic dependence on their products, because that business has recently also taken to selling competing products.

This is why it would actually be worth bring it up with the OFT.

 dr_ether wrote:
It matters because GW is taking advantage of how their previous near monopoly in a niche industry has meant stores are too reliant on their products.

This is why arguments that 'WG should just stop trading with GW', are simplistic, naive, and miss the historical reason for why WG and others can't just do that, and how GW knows this and uses this to their advantage. Such as changing TOCs so that it benefits them because they know stores can't just drop their products immediately.

So while it is business, it is not business based on the quality of a product, but on a historical financial dependency that they helped establish.

So GW are taking advantage of the historical strength of their product and their market share to consolidate their profits and cut out the third party trade partners. Hmm... still just seems like business to me. Is it mean? Yes. Does that matter to shareholders? Not a jot. If you eliminate emotion from this, you're left with very little to talk about.

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Sigh,

I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:

Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.

So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.

Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.

It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.

I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.

From the tone of the quotes, it seems like he is reading GW's attorney allegations...

 DarthOvious wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:
Sigh,

I'm having a read of the main court document right just now and I can already see some inconsistences to what have stated. For instance this bit:

Chapterhouse wrongly claims that the jury’s award of the full $25,000 sought by Games Workshop suggests Chapterhouse was the prevailing party. First, contrary to Chapterhouse’s assertion, Games Workshop did not seek $400,000; Games Workshop merely presented Chapterhouse’s gross sales of the accused products and claimed it was entitled to Chapterhouse’s profits on those sales.

So already off the bat. The claim that GW were trying to sue Chapterhouse for $400,000 to begin with seems to be have been declared a false one.

Guys I'm not going to read the rest of this and regret it. Am I? After this I still have the statements from both sides to read but I thought I would start with the main one since that shows the courts main judgement on the matter.

It would be really nice if you included who said that. Without context its pretty meaningless.

I could easily quote sentences from either council which if assumed as fact would damn the other side.

See the part where I said it was from THE MAIN COURT DOCUMENT? Yes I know caps are impolite but I thought I would it clear this time since you missed it the first time.

You need to read the question more carefully. You told me where it was written I asked who said it, if you look closely you will find that text is from the GW legal teams statement on how the Judge should interpret the juries decision. Context in these things is very important.

Edit. The quote is from the "joint status for entry of judgment" document.

On on the point about GW and how it acts to monopolise the market by using its historical dominance to shutter outlets that might stock their competition. http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/04/the-iron-fist-how-games-workshop-intends-to-monopolise-the-online-sale-of-products/