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.

 chris_valera wrote:


I wasn't aware I had to disprove every sale made at every GW register ever.in the history or mankind. I only mentioned that fan backlash hasn't been an issue as it relates to prices except in the case of CSM box set. Customers leaving because of steadily increasing prices is something else, although I do think that happens as well. It's just that fan backlash, as it pertains to feedback and social media criticism, doen't seem to have much of an effect on GW.

I am not sure what you want to prove or disprove, but this just wasn't it.

Indeed, this forum is filled with hundreds of fans claiming GW would make a hell of a lot of more money if they dropped prices a bit and made the hobby more accessible.

Either way, their pricing is entirely unrelated to the discussion of negative online-feedback, so whatever you wanted to counterpoint or not, it's baffling that you brought up prices.

As said, there are plenty of studies that have explored the significant costs of negative backlash for other companies. Some (estimated) 180 Million for United Airlines (despite them not making airplane tickets any cheaper). Some estimated 30 Million (and the first every quarterly loss in the companies history) for Starbucks (despite them not making their coffee cheaper) and their "dipper well" scandal.

There is no reason to assume that GW is somehow different than all other companies on this planet?

GW just might be. But since we can't prove that, the prudent assumption would be that ... like 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of all other businesses on this planet, they are no exception and take financial losses when their brand is tarnished.

Wouldn't you agree?

Bingo, just what I wanted to find.

From Wikipedia on the Article 102 of EU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Dominance and monopoly[edit]

Main article: Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law


The economist's depiction of deadweight loss to efficiency that monopolies cause
Article 102 is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position to the detriment of consumers. It provides that,
"Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the common market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market insofar as it may affect trade between Member States.
This can mean,
(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making 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."
First it is necessary to determine whether a firm is dominant, or whether it behaves "to an appreciable extent independently of its competitors, customers and ultimately of its consumer."[16] Under EU law, very large market shares raise a presumption that a firm is dominant,[17] which may be rebuttable.[18] If a firm has a dominant position, because it has beyond a 39.7% market share[19] then there is "a special responsibility not to allow its conduct to impair competition on the common market"[20] Same as with collusive conduct, market shares are determined with reference to the particular market in which the firm and product in question is sold. Then although the lists are seldom closed,[21] certain categories of abusive conduct are usually prohibited under the country's legislation. For instance, limiting production at a shipping port by refusing to raise expenditure and update technology could be abusive.[22] Tying one product into the sale of another can be considered abuse too, being restrictive of consumer choice and depriving competitors of outlets. This was the alleged case in Microsoft v. Commission[23] leading to an eventual fine of €497 million for including its Windows Media Player with the Microsoft Windows platform. A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated.

I still don't think competition legislation is particularly relevant to this case - if it were, people would be using it - and besides, any industry you consider GW to be in, they're competing with various healthy competitors. Miniatures? Mantic and PP. Retail? Please. Plenty of other products out there for WG and the like to sell. Or are we saying the industry is the "Selling GW products" industry? If it is, I can think of plenty of examples of companies that don't let other firms carry their products, particularly at the boutique level that GW currently identify themselves with.

Now, if GW start buying up all the plastic and resin production facilities on the globe so that other minis firms can't make plastic kits anymore, I'll write straight to the EU myself.

But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

PhantomViper 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.

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

Its from GWs statement in the main court document but it still says that they didn't mention the full $400,000 as claims to damages but merely presented what Chapterhouse made in sales.

EDIT: Sorry edit the above statement to say Chapterhouse made in sales. I originally said profit and thats not true.

 dr_ether wrote:
But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

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.

Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.

Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.

 Bull0 wrote:

 dr_ether wrote:
But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.

Hence the highlighted case,

A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated

So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.

 dr_ether wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 dr_ether wrote:
But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.

Hence the highlighted case,

A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated

So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.

No, I think using that line to back up your point is seriously tenuous. The example is a raw material vital in the production of a competitor's product, not the supply of a retail product which a competitors' retail channels presently make a lot of their money from. They're totally different.

 dr_ether wrote:

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.

Sorry, once again this is a category error. Your wikipedia quote doesn't support your case.

GW does not restrict competition - there is no evidence that they penalise retailers for stocking other brands. That is, in the main, what anti-competitive practices are. If you're making an allegation that GW makes it harder for people like Wayland to compete, then what you're really discussing is Price Fixing. The Wikipedia entry is linked - good luck with that one.

But the principle is the same.

An online store is a major distributor for company A.

Said online store also distributes for company B. This one makes up a large amount of their revenue.

Company B can act, using its market dominance in a manner that shuts down the online store and so shuts out sales of company A. In effect ceasing competition, not by how customers make their choices, but by removing a means for customers to even make a choice.

 dr_ether wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 dr_ether wrote:
But the point is, it is anti-competitive if their actions can shut down a company that sells rival products. Sure the rivals are healthy, but to be able to wield the fiscal dominance to cause a major online retailer to be shutter, and in turn stifle the sale and distribution of rival products in a region. That seems pretty anti-competitive to me.

Hmm, maybe you have a point there. I don't think that's the goal though. And those competitors can still sell their own stuff direct. If your competitors suffer because their retail channels were depending on YOUR products to survive, that's... well, I mean, it's convoluted. If you argue that, you could argue that you're not allowed to stop trading altogether because you're too big to stop. It would have to go to court for a judgement, I guess. Not at all convinced.

Hence the highlighted case,

A refusal to supply a facility essential for all businesses attempting to compete can constitute an abuse. An example was a case involving a medical company named Commercial Solvents.[24] When it set up its own rival in the tuberculosis drugs market, Commercial Solvents were forced to continue supplying a company named Zoja with the raw materials for the drug. Zoja was the only market competitor, so without the court forcing supply, all competition would have been eliminated

So the question would be 'How important is Wayland Games for the supply of other games'. In the case of PP stuff, maybe not too bad, but for other companies it could be quite significant.

I think your argument here is stating is that becuase WG could be badly affected by GW not stocking them with their products that this would then mean that other companies could be adversely affected.

Well it goes back to what I said earlier. GW has overheads for both shops and for future tech. If you're a competitor and you don't own stores to sell your stuff in and the stores that you do sell your products in go bust then perhaps you should have invested into selling your own stuff effectively to begin with.

In this day and age the internet is where buisness is being done now. Effectively as long as you've got an online store then you have the necessities to run a buisness. Sure you could sell more if you're stocked in additional places, including shops but its not necessary for your product to appear in shop in order to run a buisness.

At the end of the day this is buisness competition. Don't be fooled into thinking that every other company in the world does not do this. Every other company in the world does do this. They look at their competitors and then they think to themselves, how can I take their part of the pie away from them. Sure its best to do this in a legal manner but I don't think any of us here are qualified to speak whether refraining to stock indpendent stickists with your own product can be considered an illegal activity.

 dr_ether wrote:
But the principle is the same.

An online store is a major distributor for company A.

Said online store also distributes for company B. This one makes up a large amount of their revenue.

Company B can act, using its market dominance in a manner that shuts down the online store and so shuts out sales of company A. In effect ceasing competition, not by how customers make their choices, but by removing a means for customers to even make a choice.

Again, I'm afraid this is a meaningless argument that misses the point. If GW are imposing particular terms on WG, it's demonstrably aimed at controlling access to their own product, rather than to push out competing product.

But if access to their product hampers a competing product i.e. causes the distributor to shut down, then GWs intentions matter little if that is the result.

Isn't it equally arguable that if WG can't sell Warhammer anymore, the competitors benefit because WG will want to sell more of other stuff?

 Bull0 wrote:
No, I think using that line to back up your point is seriously tenuous. The example is a raw material vital in the production of a competitor's product, not the supply of a retail product which a competitors' retail channels presently make a lot of their money from. They're totally different.

Here I have something you may be interested in. You know other people were telling that Roman numerals blah, blah along with shoulder padsblah, blah, blah couldn't be trademarked, etc, etc. Well read this from the Judgement:

Chapterhouse has been found to infringe Games Workshop’s copyrights with respect to the following forty-nine products (product numbers refer to numbering in Plaintiff’s Trial Exhibits 1020 and 1021): Skull or Chaplain Head or Bit for Power Armor (product 3); Selected Shoulder pads: “Terminator pad for Exorcist Space Marine,” “Power Armour Pad for Exorcist,” one of the “Sawblade Shoulder Pad & Jewel” pads, “Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes - Terminator,” “Shoulder Pad for Serpent or Iron Snakes – Tactical,” “Shoulder Pad w/ skull and flames - tactical”, “Shoulder Pad w/ Studs and Skull for 28mm marine - Tactical”,“Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Tactical,” “Shoulder Pads for Chalice or Soul Drinker – Terminator,” “Hammer of Dorn Power Armor Pad,” “Hammer of Dorn Terminator Pad,” “Power Armor Shoulder Pad for Scythes of the Emperor,” “Scythes of the Emperor Terminator Shoulder Pad” (Products 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 149, 150,153, 154); Assault Shoulder pad with number VII and VIII, Devastator marine shoulder pad with IX and X, Tactical shoulder pad with I, II, III, IV, IV, and VI (Products 46, 47, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62); Crested shoulder pad (Product 49); “Generic Power Armour Shoulder Pad” and “Smooth Shoulder Pad for 28mm tactical – marine” (Products 54, 55); “Banded Tech Pad” and “Banded Armor Pad” compatible with power armor and terminator armor (Products 68, 73, 74); Studded rimmed shoulder pad MKV, MK I Heresy Era for 28mm Marines “Thunder Armor” shoulder pad, studded power armor pad for MK 5 (Products 75, 78, 80); Tervigon conversion kit (Product 37); Heresy Era Jump Pack (Product 76); Spikey heresy heads (Product 79); Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #1 and Wolf Rhino Conversion Kit #2 (Products 82, 104); Iron Snake conversion kit for Rhino (Product 106); Doomseer Iyanar Duanna (Product 108); Gun Halberd (Product 112); Conversion Beamer Servo Harness (Product 113); Armana'serq Scorpion Warrior Princess (Product 123); Open-Fisted power claws and Closed-Fisted power claws (Products 132, 133); TRU Scale Knights Praetorius “Order of the Empress’s Tears” Conversion Kit and TRU-Scale Knight Praetorius Conversion Kit (Products 142, 143); “Shrike Conversion Kit” (Product 159); Dark Elf Arch
Torturess (Product 160).

Did you notice quite a few shoulder pads with designs on that list?

 DarthOvious wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

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.

Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.

Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.

Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.

This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.

A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

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.

Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.

Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.

Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.

What I am getting at is that people were saying that GW wanted $400,000 but only got £25,000. The court documents clearly show that $25,000 is what GW requested at the end of the case and thats why they only got $25,000. Yes, this was influenced by the outcome of the case but I wanted to point out that nowhere in this case that GW was denied an award of $400,000. It was an award they claimed for after all facts of the case had been delivered on both sides.

This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.

There is nothing dubious about it. In their statement they made a claim to the court that the $400,000 were what they considered the sales from Chapterhouse.

A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.

Its understandably vague because of course you're going to change your claim for damages depending on the outcome of the case. There is nothing dubious about this.

its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.

In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.

The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.

 DarthOvious wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

 DarthOvious wrote:

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

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.

Its from GWs statement in the main court document. However it was cited because some people claimed that GW was going for a suit of $400,000. This shows that GWs claim isn;'t that they were shuing for $400,000 but merely presented the profits that Chapterhouse made. Its still a necessary quote to make.

Edit: Sorry the $400,000 isn't a claim on profit. It is a claim on sales.

Made by GW council in a document concerned heavily with convincing a judge to declare a $25k award as a victory written after the verdict was in. Gw council want to make it look like they got a good award relative to what they asked for.

What I am getting at is that people were saying that GW wanted $400,000 but only got £25,000. The court documents clearly show that $25,000 is what GW requested at the end of the case and thats why they only got $25,000. Yes, this was influenced by the outcome of the case but I wanted to point out that nowhere in this case that GW was denied an award of $400,000. It was an award they claimed for after all facts of the case had been delivered on both sides.

This is why the context matters, had it been a statement by the judge at the start of the trial it would be a lot less dubious.

There is nothing dubious about it. In their statement they made a claim to the court that the $400,000 were what they considered the sales from Chapterhouse.

A much better thing to quote would be the text from the original complaint although I expect it will be understandably vague. After all if you were to ask for 100% of the profits and the plaintiff claims they broke even you would get nothing(I assume). In the UK many small businesses report zero earnings for tax purposes using any leftover money as reinvestment or owner salaries.

Its understandably vague because of course you're going to change your claim for damages depending on the outcome of the case. There is nothing dubious about this.

At
trial, Chapterhouse won on the majority of claims. And although the jury awarded $25,000 to
Games Workshop, that was a tiny fraction of the hundreds of thousands of dollars Games Workshop
had initially sought. Far from showing it prevailed, the fact that Games Workshop was forced to
make a demand for that small amount after years of litigation confirms it did not prevail.

Same document. That is why the context matters, who said what and why. Taking one sides version as gospel is unwise. My quote is from page 8 and is part of the chapterhouse submission.

Side note didn't anyone ever tell them not to start sentences with "And".

 dragqueeninspace wrote:

Side note didn't anyone ever tell them not to start sentences with "And".

I think it is a fairly well established fact that the language lawyers use doesn't follow the same rules as that of the rest of us.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.

In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.

The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.

The CHS thing was never on-topic, face it.

 Bull0 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.

In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.

The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.

The CHS thing was never on-topic, face it.

The "CHS thing" was only brought up to disprove your claims:

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

By presenting not only a case where GW pursued legal action where they weren't "in the right" in the vast majorities of those claims, by demonstrating that when it serves their purpose they are perfectly capable of acting in an unethical and borderline illegal fashion and also to make the point that "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. ", isn't really a viable option, in most circumstances, to a small company fighting a relative giant such as GW because of the costs associated with a legal battle of this nature.

PhantomViper wrote:
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.

Sure. I'll try to keep this brief, understandable and to the point.

Firstly, you've dug up what is basically anti-trust law. Teleologically, Article 101 is meant to prohibit market disruptions by cartels or monopolies. We are not dealing with a market disruption here, as the consumer's access to GW products at their regular prices would not even be hindered if Wayland closed down. So, in simple words, you're in the wrong field of law.

Secondly, Section e) has a different intent to how you are reading it. Having read the English version for the first time when making my post, I have to admit that it's a very understandable mistake as English is just such a horribly imprecise language (no offense intended towards native speakers), but if you either read the Guidelines of the European Commission on the interpretation of Article 101 or, like me, have the benefit of reading the authentic text in another language (in my case, German), it'll be more clear.

"Supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts" (relevant part bolded) means to tell you that anything you would not expect to be part of a certain type of contract (here: sales) MAY fall under Article 101 IF the other conditions are met. Imposing pre-release non-dissemination clauses upon contractors is indeed very much "commercial usage" (think of Apple's pre-release secrecy or the automotive industry in regards to new designs), and the seller's interest to market their goods as effectively as possible (here: "create a buzz, hype") justifies such clauses as being a "natural" part of selling something.

Not everything that is not part of the essentialia negotii is "unconnected" to the subject of a contract - indeed, it's rather hard to come up with (reasonable) examples where this is the case. For Article 101, such examples can only be found if you keep the law's intent in mind: Information exchange, agreements on R&D, production or purchasing agreements, commercialisation agreements, standardisation agreements. If I'm allowed to quib: Big Business stuff, not toy soldiers.

Thirdly, and this also goes out to dr_ether, GW is neither in a dominant market position nor a monopoly. The market we're talking about is toys. GW MAY have a market share of more than 40% in the "wargaming miniatures" market, which MIGHT be deemed a valid definition if we found a few geeky judges who are willing to stretch, which in turn INDICATES (not equals) a dominant market position. They still can not control prices, consumers have no need to buy from them, they can not and do not use their market position to eliminate competition etc. etc., so any such accusation would stand on awfully flimsy legs.

All this means that we are facing the question whether GW's terms of trade (which are an integral part of the sales contract and thus make the unwanted dissemination of information a contractual matter, not one of competition law or copyright law) are "fair". My expertise ends here, as I cannot possibly judge what a UK court would deem fair. If this came to an Austrian court, it would be found that it is entirely within GW's rights to demand that all their goods remain secret to third parties until the designated release date (again, I want to stress this, quite standard procedure really) and to demand that this obligation is also bound to any subsidiaries.

The subject of any civil proceedings would be whether GW's accusations of Wayland sharing information with BoW was substantially believable, and whether BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland. From here on, it becomes a question whether GW acted in breach of their contract with Wayland and in good faith, not whether they were in breach of law.

Beyond a reference it is, if you want to comment on the case and how you perceive the facts and what the courts have decided till the appeals time go to its thread and comment your harts out.

Here we discuss on GW using underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their biding.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
Beyond a reference it is, if you want to comment on the case and how you perceive the facts and what the courts have decided till the appeals time go to its thread and comment your harts out.

Here we discuss on GW using underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their biding.

Here we discuss BoW cutting ties with WG over GW legal letters and GW's trade terms with WG. If you want to comment on "GW's underhanded tactics to push people and companies they shouldn't to do their bidding" start a new thread, preferably not in News & Rumours.

See? I can do it too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
its not the "courts documents" its how the layer of each side suggest the judge to write his statement.

In any case the only reason I brought the CHS and it was in topic with this thread is the extend they are willing to not obey law, bend rules and use underhanded tactics to achieve their goals and to illustrate how unsupported the majority of their claims are when they threaten somebody legally.

The whole discussion about the case is off topic and your attempts to discredit posters arguments and worries by nitpicking quotes from a case you admit never followed, without context of time events, decisions and what the thing you quote is, is questionable.

The CHS thing was never on-topic, face it.

The "CHS thing" was only brought up to disprove your claims:

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

By presenting not only a case where GW pursued legal action where they weren't "in the right" in the vast majorities of those claims, by demonstrating that when it serves their purpose they are perfectly capable of acting in an unethical and borderline illegal fashion and also to make the point that "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. ", isn't really a viable option, in most circumstances, to a small company fighting a relative giant such as GW because of the costs associated with a legal battle of this nature.

You're going to have to explain how a completely separate civil legal proceeding has anything to do with what I said, because I don't begin to understand where the link is other than that what I said isn't totally defamatory of GW and the CHS thing is an example where GW were kind of jerks (or totally justifiably defending their copyright, as is their responsibility to their shareholders, depending on how big of a bleeding heart you are). Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").

 Bull0 wrote:
Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").

May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).

I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.

 Allod wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").

May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).

I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.

Oh I understand that legal proceedings are hella expensive and I have much more sympathy when it's individuals - but for businesses I see a distinction, particularly if those businesses are going to publically allude to wrongdoing on the part of the other party but not take it to court. I did say "people" rather than "businesses", I probably should've been a lot clearer there.

 Allod wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Or, that people don't pursue legal action when they have recourse because "it's too expensive" (I've made my feelings on that argument clear above too, by the way - I don't have any sympathy for it, basically. If anything I think to not take legal action when you have recourse is massively irresponsible and damaging, particularly if you then throw around claims like "We're being bullied").

May God preserve your naivety by never putting you in such a situation (honestly).

I see legal bullying by a massively stronger party on a weekly basis, and this is not hyperbole. I have seen people lose their flats, their financial existence and their mental health over it. I have a lot of sympathy for it, and I'm not sure whether you are cynical or just argumentative.

+1 (to the sentiment, thankfully I don't share the experience)

While "if you're in the right, take action" is a technically correct argument (and we all know, technically is the best sort of correct!) there are myriad circumstances where that simply isn't possible or viable.

 Allod wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
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.

Sure. I'll try to keep this brief, understandable and to the point.

Firstly, you've dug up what is basically anti-trust law. Teleologically, Article 101 is meant to prohibit market disruptions by cartels or monopolies. We are not dealing with a market disruption here, as the consumer's access to GW products at their regular prices would not even be hindered if Wayland closed down. So, in simple words, you're in the wrong field of law.

Secondly, Section e) has a different intent to how you are reading it. Having read the English version for the first time when making my post, I have to admit that it's a very understandable mistake as English is just such a horribly imprecise language (no offense intended towards native speakers), but if you either read the Guidelines of the European Commission on the interpretation of Article 101 or, like me, have the benefit of reading the authentic text in another language (in my case, German), it'll be more clear.

"Supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts" (relevant part bolded) means to tell you that anything you would not expect to be part of a certain type of contract (here: sales) MAY fall under Article 101 IF the other conditions are met. Imposing pre-release non-dissemination clauses upon contractors is indeed very much "commercial usage" (think of Apple's pre-release secrecy or the automotive industry in regards to new designs), and the seller's interest to market their goods as effectively as possible (here: "create a buzz, hype") justifies such clauses as being a "natural" part of selling something.

Not everything that is not part of the essentialia negotii is "unconnected" to the subject of a contract - indeed, it's rather hard to come up with (reasonable) examples where this is the case. For Article 101, such examples can only be found if you keep the law's intent in mind: Information exchange, agreements on R&D, production or purchasing agreements, commercialisation agreements, standardisation agreements. If I'm allowed to quib: Big Business stuff, not toy soldiers.

Thirdly, and this also goes out to dr_ether, GW is neither in a dominant market position nor a monopoly. The market we're talking about is toys. GW MAY have a market share of more than 40% in the "wargaming miniatures" market, which MIGHT be deemed a valid definition if we found a few geeky judges who are willing to stretch, which in turn INDICATES (not equals) a dominant market position. They still can not control prices, consumers have no need to buy from them, they can not and do not use their market position to eliminate competition etc. etc., so any such accusation would stand on awfully flimsy legs.

All this means that we are facing the question whether GW's terms of trade (which are an integral part of the sales contract and thus make the unwanted dissemination of information a contractual matter, not one of competition law or copyright law) are "fair". My expertise ends here, as I cannot possibly judge what a UK court would deem fair. If this came to an Austrian court, it would be found that it is entirely within GW's rights to demand that all their goods remain secret to third parties until the designated release date (again, I want to stress this, quite standard procedure really) and to demand that this obligation is also bound to any subsidiaries.

The subject of any civil proceedings would be whether GW's accusations of Wayland sharing information with BoW was substantially believable, and whether BoW is a subsidiary of Wayland. From here on, it becomes a question whether GW acted in breach of their contract with Wayland and in good faith, not whether they were in breach of law.

First, I wan't to thank you for taking the time to reply so: thank you very much.

Now, I understand that secrecy rules in contracts are pretty much the norm and perfectly legal, I work in a field where this type of NDA is allot more important than just "Toy Soldiers", what I fail to understand is how you can equate GW making sure that Wayland doesn't divulge their products before release (perfectly logical and legal), to GW saying that Wayland is responsible for a third party divulging said products before time? How is the behaviour of a third party relevant to a contract between party A and B?