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.
What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 21:54:15
And here's the kicker...GW is still involved in that litigation with no hope of escape except at the sufferance of Chapterhouse Studios, who has two of the most highly regarded IP firms in the world working for free. GW is staring down the barrel of several hundred thousand dollars to argue the appeal, a possible new trial, and the potential for millions of dollars in court awarded attorney's fees.
I thought that US doesn't have that system, court awarding the attorney fees?
In civil cases it can be done.
Quite correct. The prevailing party is usually entitled to costs, but you can recover fees in a variety of ways, including based on being the prevailing party (I think, though IANAL and I haven't read the relevant section of the FRCP in a while). There's also various torts in which attorney fees are recoverable, such as malicious litigation, tortious interference, abuse of process, and such like. In the best/worst case, there could be an outcome in which CHS prevails in the appeal and motions for costs and fees or follows up with a subsequent lawsuit to recover damages. I'm not making a comment on likelihood, other than to say that statutes exist through which a party in such a situation could recover fees. Thus it is within the realm of possibility.
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
Well he's still going to be Chairman, just not CEO, assuming the board votes for him, which IIRC he was before the previous CEO (Wells?) resigned. In fact, he wasn't supposed to be both, he was "interim CEO".
In theory, but there's no guarantee the board will vote to keep him.
Regardless, what more do people want? Seriously - while I don't think the man deserves the job he currently holds, he's done nothing illegal.
Re-electing Kirby as chairman wasn't on the meeting agenda, FYI, for what that's worth.
This preamble reads like a point by point response to accusations that have been thrown at Kirby by the board and investors over the past few months. He is still the Chairman (as of now), so he is allowed to write his preamble. Seems pretty obvious to me that Kirby used this as an opportunity to tell the shareholders that they can take their complaints and stuff it. He's basically saying that although the board/shareholders are bitching about the company's finances, he will be proven right in the end.
In this context, the fact that the Chapterhouse case takes up a full third of this preamble is a huge deal. "Indecent amount of [our] money" sounds like words that have been thrown at Kirby's face more than a few times. He's not even trying to justify the expense. Seriously, imagine how someone must have reacted to finding out that in the context of these massive cost cutting measures GW spent $250,000.00 on printing copies just for the trial! God knows what the full bill is. It is probably in the 7 figures. And unlike an expensive website, there's no way to justify that expense. Kirby doesn't even try.
And here's the kicker...GW is still involved in that litigation with no hope of escape except at the sufferance of Chapterhouse Studios, who has two of the most highly regarded IP firms in the world working for free. GW is staring down the barrel of several hundred thousand dollars to argue the appeal, a possible new trial, and the potential for millions of dollars in court awarded attorney's fees.
I'm not surprised Kirby is getting fired. GW's general counsel got the ax two months after the trial and that apparently wasn't enough to save Kirby's neck. Now that Kirby's head is on the chopping block, I expect to see the heads of the other members of GW's "Intellectual Property Protection Group" roll as well, namely Alan Roy Merrett and Andrew Jones. When the bottom guy gets fired and the top guy gets fired, the people in between aren't long for the world.
Nice post!
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
Agreed
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:19:01
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:21:24
Kirasu: Have we fallen so far that we are excited that GW is giving us the opportunity to spend 58$ for JUST the rules? Surprised it's not "Dataslate: Assault Phase"
AlexHolker: "The power loader is a forklift. The public doesn't complain about a forklift not having frontal armour protecting the crew compartment because the only enemy it is designed to face is the OHSA violation."
AlexHolker: "Allow me to put it this way: Paramount is Skynet, reboots are termination attempts, and your childhood is John Connor."
Seeing this preamble, makes me wonder if the perrys thought this was the best time to go. Because staying with GW wasn't a long term option. Take the golden handshake and run.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
I don't understand where the suggestion comes that Kirby is getting fired. Original communicea said that Kirby will be an 'acting CEO', and he has always used that title. It also said that the Board will be seeking new CEO in due course. He announced his withdrawal from the job five months early - it is of course possible that the Board is unhappy with the job he has done, but usually such thing manifests with quicker withdrawal schedule.
MWHistorian wrote: I hope the new CEO understands that the internet exists for more that direct sales.
I wonder... was all of that nonsense policy from Kirby? Could a new CEO actually turn the ship around and rekindle relationships with retailers, allow them to sell online at a discount, bring back the bitz, etc?
Despite the immense amount of ill-feeling that GW have managed to generate in their former fans and supporters, there is IMO still the potential for a renaissance.
I think a lot of things GW did over the past five+ years were stupid, but not everything. I wouldn't bring bitz back, not in the form they were at any rate, but sprue frames of spare parts could easily be sold. I think one man shops are a stupid idea considering the sampling and support that new recruits need. Reversing that is simply a matter of recruiting and training more staff, and reconnecting with veterans, clubs and independents.
A lot of people believe that part of GW's problem is a strong yes man culture -- group think -- around Kirby, that prevents the company from taking the steps we regard as important for reconnecting with the "community" and restoring the company to health.
From that angle, a new guy who broke free of the supposed Kirby kulture could I think turn things around pretty quickly.
I agree completely. People are quick to forgive if its sincere, and I think a smart and motivated bloke could do wonders for GWs rep, lets just hope it actually happens one day before its too late.
mattyrm wrote: I am truly stunned at the 4 million mark for the website, how is that even possible?
I know nothing about web design and the costs involved, so someone please explain why is this bad?
A good mate of mine does web design and search optimization and gak for a living, hes Google certified and all that bollocks.
Anyways, he said he makes a cheap gakky website for like 500 bucks, and a fully designed, all singing all dancing, original art and sounds and buttons and videos and all of that gak website for between 5 and 8 grand.
Now, I know that for a big company like GW, with a massive inventory and all kind of complex gak it is obviously going to be much higher, as require much more effort, but do you see what I'm saying? If one bloke who does it really well and professionally for say, 8 grand, you would presume it would cost some sort of derivative of that amount.
So, lets be generous and say it would take not just one bloke, but twenty, surely you are still talking under a million bucks right?
If I had been asked for a best guess before reading that, seriously Id have basically times my mates figure by twenty or something, so Id have said like.. between 200-300 grand. I certainly wouldn't have got near a million, and feth me, 4 baffles me completely, because surely you could hire twenty pros to work on it full time for 6 months, and still not get anywhere near that figure.
That's for the webpage that you see...
What we don't see, is the "supply chain" side of the business. Essentially the IT infrastructure to support the inventory / accounting side of the business. Maybe that got updated along with the new website?
Oh yeah of course,but you know what Im saying right? It just sounds crazy. Like the infrastructure to support the inventory and accounting abslutely has to have already been in place, because their old website was still a functioning store. I could understand if they were massively expanding and going from something along the lines of a blog or something, all the way to a proper functioning store along the lines of Amazon, but they were already hosting images and selling things, so surely almost all of the legwork was already in place?
As I said, even if it wasnt, I would estimate like, 250k tops for a full redseign, and then maybe the same again twice over for new innovations, and I still wouldnt be at a million quid, I genuinely don't understand it me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:35:40
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Is it a wise idea to have a 'dig on the American legal system' in an official communication, especially when GW is actively involved in various things with it right now?
Well he's still going to be Chairman, just not CEO, assuming the board votes for him, which IIRC he was before the previous CEO (Wells?) resigned. In fact, he wasn't supposed to be both, he was "interim CEO".
In theory, but there's no guarantee the board will vote to keep him.
Regardless, what more do people want? Seriously - while I don't think the man deserves the job he currently holds, he's done nothing illegal.
Re-electing Kirby as chairman wasn't on the meeting agenda, FYI, for what that's worth.
This preamble reads like a point by point response to accusations that have been thrown at Kirby by the board and investors over the past few months. He is still the Chairman (as of now), so he is allowed to write his preamble. Seems pretty obvious to me that Kirby used this as an opportunity to tell the shareholders that they can take their complaints and stuff it. He's basically saying that although the board/shareholders are bitching about the company's finances, he will be proven right in the end.
In this context, the fact that the Chapterhouse case takes up a full third of this preamble is a huge deal. "Indecent amount of [our] money" sounds like words that have been thrown at Kirby's face more than a few times. He's not even trying to justify the expense. Seriously, imagine how someone must have reacted to finding out that in the context of these massive cost cutting measures GW spent $250,000.00 on printing copies just for the trial! God knows what the full bill is. It is probably in the 7 figures. And unlike an expensive website, there's no way to justify that expense. Kirby doesn't even try.
And here's the kicker...GW is still involved in that litigation with no hope of escape except at the sufferance of Chapterhouse Studios, who has two of the most highly regarded IP firms in the world working for free. GW is staring down the barrel of several hundred thousand dollars to argue the appeal, a possible new trial, and the potential for millions of dollars in court awarded attorney's fees.
I'm not surprised Kirby is getting fired. GW's general counsel got the ax two months after the trial and that apparently wasn't enough to save Kirby's neck. Now that Kirby's head is on the chopping block, I expect to see the heads of the other members of GW's "Intellectual Property Protection Group" roll as well, namely Alan Roy Merrett and Andrew Jones. When the bottom guy gets fired and the top guy gets fired, the people in between aren't long for the world.
Hahaha. I still can't believe they thought they could win.
But nice post.
I have nothing to offer other than a criticism of GW, which is that I would probably run a better company than Kirby. By I don't know, following the attics of other companies, and read over history of the company and find ways to boost profit and ensure the company is good standing with its community and shareholders.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:44:06
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
He certainly sounds like a bitter man right now. Referring to your board and yourself as cronies, even when mocking investors that disagree with you, is pretty bad form. I'm guessing the annual report is going to be cringe worthy.
What was a bit shocking however, was his direct reference to complaints levied against him. How did he know of those complaints (Cronies, obscene amount of money against CHS, mocking the legal system, etc. etc.). Either, he reads forums or the board has dressed him down--either way, interesting.
Good for 40k players he's moving on, hope he becomes a wall flower if the board keeps him.
I'm going to tell my hospital CEO next physician we hire for the clinic--we should just read a letter and discard their CV. I'm sure he would react just fine
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
What it fails to recognize though is that if it were tried under the utterly refined laws of the UK - it would have been tossed out on its ear (Lucas v Ainsworth).
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW - if this is a hoax (that someone managed to hack into GW's website and load onto their server) it is pretty thorough. They remembered to change the name of the PDF author to Rachel Tongue - the secretary for GW and PDF author of most of GW's releases.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:49:11
Translation-
We did really badly when it came to making you money, but we will make you money in the future, honestly...
We spent loads of your money, but we will make you money in the future, honestly...
We spent loads of your money trying to sue people who were making a little bit of money on things that helped to sell our products.
There is new technology out there but we're not worried about it and nor should you be, come and join us as we bury our heads in the sand, put our fingers in our ears and go 'NAH NAH NAH NAH'
I'm stepping down as CEO, but I'll have a background job for the same (or probably more) pay, but as its background I can't be blamed or sued when the whole thing goes tits up...
I'd thought he was having a go at the legal profession in general - implying perhaps that the legal system can't keep up with how fast things move in the digital age (which would be ironic given Kirby's cluelessness in that area) or more likely "we lost, therefore it sucks." But if he's specifically bashing the US system, it just makes him look even more unprofessional.
Driven away from WH40K by rules bloat and the expense of keeping up, now interested in smaller model count games and anything with nifty mechanics.
paulson games wrote: Does anyone else picture this being written on shaky hands after downing a bottle of Bourbon and all the while contemplating eating the business end of a revolver?
Paulson, as someone who was wrongly and unnecessarily involved in the beginning of the legal proceedings mentioned in the preamble, can you (within the terms of your settlement and/or NDA) confirm or deny that someone stole GW's hog? I suspect the UK legal system is better set up to deal with Grand Fish and Chips Theft than the subsequent post-colonial system we have here.
I'm not a legal expert or judge so nothing I say is anything beyond personal opinion
The problem as I see it is that Kirby and GW legal don't fully understand what is and isn't protectable within their IP. They seem to be under the impression that every word and object they add into a story belongs to them, which couldn't be further from the truth. IN the lawsuit they expressed that they owned things/terms like rail gun, or grenade launcher, which is simply insane given that those are real world items that predate GW by decades, or in some cases centuries (like halberd, wtf?)
It makes very little sense to draw a hard line in the sand and defend it at all costs when you have no idea what the legal foundation for such battles actually is.
Many of the visual elements that 40k has been created from are heavily influenced from very obvious sources, star wars, judge dredd,etc. (and namely in regards to Dredd/2000AD they used some of the same artists to work on the 40k books so the style and design tends to blur together) Certain specific combination or arrangements of those items may be protectable, but underlying ideas are not. They cannot claim to own the rights to all oversized shoulder pads for example, yet many of the legal claims were attempting just that.
I think the core issue that is facing GW is that they have lost grip on their understanding on what 40k actually is. Both in terms of what their IP actually entails and also how they relate to their customer and creative community. They are out of touch with almost everything they do and the further they get away from understanding their own products the worse the internal collapse is going to be. You can't drive sales when you don't understand the product or understand what your customers want. They built their walls up so high that it's cut them off from everything and it's cut them off from their customers and the creativity spark that's essential to keeping a hobby based business alive. In short ever since they went public they've lost the heart and soul of the company, it's taken time for it to erode away but I think we're finally seeing the fall out from GW losing their way. (and their war being waged against their own customers)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 22:59:04
Paulson Games parts are now at:
www.RedDogMinis.com
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
What it fails to recognize though is that if it were tried under the utterly refined laws of the UK - it would have been tossed out on its ear (Lucas v Ainsworth).
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW - if this is a hoax (that someone managed to hack into GW's website and load onto their server) it is pretty thorough. They remembered to change the name of the PDF author to Rachel Tongue - the secretary for GW and PDF author of most of GW's releases.
The Supreme Court ruled that the stormtrooper helmets were film props, not models or art. Doesn't really relate to the chapterhouse case.
paulson games wrote: Does anyone else picture this being written on shaky hands after downing a bottle of Bourbon and all the while contemplating eating the business end of a revolver?
Paulson, as someone who was wrongly and unnecessarily involved in the beginning of the legal proceedings mentioned in the preamble, can you (within the terms of your settlement and/or NDA) confirm or deny that someone stole GW's hog? I suspect the UK legal system is better set up to deal with Grand Fish and Chips Theft than the subsequent post-colonial system we have here.
I'm not a legal expert or judge so nothing I say is anything beyond personal opinion
The problem as I see it is that Kirby and GW legal don't fully understand what is and isn't protectable within their IP. They seem to be under the impression that every word and object they add into a story belongs to them, which couldn't be further from the truth. IN the lawsuit they expressed that they owned things/terms like rail gun, or grenade launcher, which is simply insane given that those are real world items that predate GW by decades, or in some cases centuries (like halberd, wtf?)
It makes very little sense to draw a hard line in the sand and defend it at all costs when you have no idea what the legal foundation for such battles actually is.
Many of the visual elements that 40k has been created from are heavily influenced from very obvious sources, star wars, judge dredd,etc. (and namely in regards to Dredd/2000AD they used some of the same artists to work on the 40k books so the style and design tends to blur together) Certain specific combination or arrangements of those items may be protectable, but underlying ideas are not. They cannot claim to own the rights to all oversized shoulder pads for example, yet many of the legal claims were attempting just that.
I think the core issue that is facing GW is that they have lost grip on their understanding on what 40k actually is. Both in terms of what their IP actually entails and also how they relate to their customer and creative community. They are out of touch with almost everything they do and the further they get away from understanding their own products the worse the internal collapse is going to be. You can't drive sales when you don't understand the product or understand what your customers want. They built their walls up so high that it's cut them off from everything and it's cut them off from their customers and the creativity spark that's essential to keeping a hobby based business alive. In short ever since they went public they've lost the heart and soul of the company, it's taken time for it to erode away but I think we're finally seeing the fall out from GW losing their way. (and their war being waged against their own customers)
I think that is something that the company is trying to understand but falls flat quite often.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Reading it again, it seems like there are a lot of half finished thoughts and other issues with this - so much so that this might be a draft copy that someone was supposed to edit and return to Kirby as opposed to publish to the website (good thing they work with such precision and efficiency). In particular - even the most basic of word processing programs will catch errors like not capitalizing "North American" and "European".
The rest is standard fair from GW. Who remembers RPGs and CCGs? Well, everyone (anecdotal for certain - but just for giggles use the Google Trend tool to compare any and all GW related searches to something like Dungeons and Dragons, Pokémon, Magic the Gathering...). Internet retailers being bad for business because they don't support the community - enter GW's one man stores with no gaming, limited hours and GW's new and improved internet store. 3D printers... I can just imagine what the "Citadel 3D Printer" will print like based on any number of the other efforts GW has made to do anything other than miniatures...
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
What it fails to recognize though is that if it were tried under the utterly refined laws of the UK - it would have been tossed out on its ear (Lucas v Ainsworth).
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW - if this is a hoax (that someone managed to hack into GW's website and load onto their server) it is pretty thorough. They remembered to change the name of the PDF author to Rachel Tongue - the secretary for GW and PDF author of most of GW's releases.
The Supreme Court ruled that the stormtrooper helmets were film props, not models or art. Doesn't really relate to the chapterhouse case.
Actually what they found was not that they were props - but toys. Their primary purpose is for play as opposed to art for the sake of art. Further, they are a design under UK law and are time limited as such. The design right for probably 95% of GW's catalog has expired. For further clarification, refer to Justice Mann's findings on his determination of what is art. For further information on design rights - refer to the IPO.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 23:25:30
-it's stupid piece of writing. Of course it is, Kirby's a corporate guy. Corporate propaganda pieces are always stupid and trying to spin everything in best possible light and often end up sounding hilarious. No exceptions. Did you see the letter with which Elop fired thousands of people from Microsoft? Kirby has NOTHING on Elop when it comes to stupid corporate language.
-Kirby's stepping down as CEO. Totally expected, AIUI Kirby doing the double chairs thing was always going to be somewhat temporary. Of course there is a caveat that he hints that he will continue if no suitable candidate is found, AND he will still continue as Chairman of the Board. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
-Steve Jobs comparison was surprisingly (though maybe unintentionally) adept in that Apple was and is extremely militant in using legal challenges to hunt down any actors, no matter how small, which it saw as a threat, including Apple fan sites and blogs. Hmm, sound familiar?
-GW website costed £4 million is somehow "OMG". I fail to see why. Sure it's not particularly GREAT site but exorbitant amount of money spent to seemingly crappy result is common enough in the world of corporate websites. Finnish State Railroads spent three years and 15 million euros for this site. It crashed within 3 hours of its induction...
Azreal13 wrote: It is stuff like this, and let's face it, it isn't the first time we've had total mind fethery from Kirby in a report, which is a matter of public record, that causes me to regard anyone who argues so hard in defence of GW with such disbelief.
But Az, can't'cha hear the hooves'a thundering? Can you not see the glint of the polished white armour on the horizon, as these grant Knights rush forward to defend King Kirby and all the crazy stuff he's saying? If they're not already here they will certainly be here soon.
You know their MO. We won't see so much as a silvered tip for a few days, and then someone will jump on something that nobody actually said and strawman the feth out of it.
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
What it fails to recognize though is that if it were tried under the utterly refined laws of the UK - it would have been tossed out on its ear (Lucas v Ainsworth).
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW - if this is a hoax (that someone managed to hack into GW's website and load onto their server) it is pretty thorough. They remembered to change the name of the PDF author to Rachel Tongue - the secretary for GW and PDF author of most of GW's releases.
The Supreme Court ruled that the stormtrooper helmets were film props, not models or art. Doesn't really relate to the chapterhouse case.
My recollection is that the Court rules in what they werent (sculpture) not what they were, but I only took a passing interest.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/07/28 23:22:37
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
timd wrote: What I want to hear is Weeble's analysis and commentary on "It is a very difficult thing to do when it is done through a legal system designed to prevent people stealing hogs from one another."
To my eyes it just looks like a dig on the American legal system, though that could just be jingoistic of me. Kirby could be referring to the courts in general and making a comment on the laws being bad at protecting nebulous concepts like "piles of skulls." See, the law views creative expression as a form of property; a hog, so to speak. In order to do this the law draws finite (if somewhat elastic) boundaries around individual acts of creative expression, much like patent law acts like a deed to a piece of property, laying out the boundaries that separates one invention from another and from the general pool of human wisdom and experience.
In the case of creative expression, the law does this by defining your "hog" as something called "protected expression," i.e. that (and only that) which is unique to a work of artistic expression that actually exists in material form; a "tangible medium of expression." In short, your hog is only your hog, not all hogs, or all hogs of one kind, or one part of all hogs. You only get your specific hog, we'll call her Bessie.
Thus, when you sue someone for unfairly appropriating Bessie, you've got to be able to describe Bessie, show proof that you own Bessie, and demonstrate that the defendant took Bessie. It isn't enough to say that you are a hog farmer and the plaintiff is also a hog farmer. It isn't enough to say that it was your idea to breed hogs like Bessie, or that the defendant took his ideas about hog raising from watching you raise up Bessie.
For a company that repeatedly tried to protect ideas, and I mean that literally - Alan Merrett literally testified that GW was asserting an idea against CHS, I expect that having to go through a justice systems that regards ideas as ownable as imaginary hogs was very frustrating.
What it fails to recognize though is that if it were tried under the utterly refined laws of the UK - it would have been tossed out on its ear (Lucas v Ainsworth).
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW - if this is a hoax (that someone managed to hack into GW's website and load onto their server) it is pretty thorough. They remembered to change the name of the PDF author to Rachel Tongue - the secretary for GW and PDF author of most of GW's releases.
The Supreme Court ruled that the stormtrooper helmets were film props, not models or art. Doesn't really relate to the chapterhouse case.
Actually what they found was not that they were props - but toys. Their primary purpose is for play as opposed to art for the sake of art. Further, they are a design under UK law and are time limited as such. The design right for probably 95% of GW's catalog has expired. For further clarification, refer to Justice Mann's findings on his determination of what is art. For further information on design rights - refer to the IPO.
Just googled/read the court ruling myself and you are correct. My apologies.
Backfire wrote: Nearly all companies, in fact, hate Internet. Even those whose business revolves around it, or takes place entirely within it. It is just too uncontrollable. Even companies like Google and Facebook are in constant conflict with the Netizens.
Sure. but most of them are also realising that it's here to stay, and are making an effort to find ways to make it work for them.
For a company that (according to statements from their own CEO and Chairman) relies almost entirely on word of mouth to sell their product to not use social networking, remove all content from their website and actively try to suppress discussion of upcoming product is just mind-boggling.
Wait, they spent HOW MUCH on a single WEBSITE!?!? I, or any member of my class could have bashed that heap of gak together within a day for far far less than they paid for that.
Finally atleast we are seeing Kirby step down though. About bloody time.
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
Finally atleast we are seeing Kirby step down though. About bloody time.
That really isn't a change. He has been the non-executive Chairman a couple of times - never changes anything. He hand selects his CEO and whoever he chooses gets the spot. The rest of the board are stooges and don't care enough to go against him (if they even had the spine to to begin with...though likely not...since they were hand selected by him as well).
Wonder if this preamble will clear up any of the confusion in Kirby hand picking his directors and them being stooges...sorry, kronies...to Kirby (if they won't take his own words for it - the chances for reasoned discourse are lost).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KommissarKarl wrote: Does anyone have any idea when the actual financials will be in?
Tomorrow:
Upcoming events
•29 July 2014 – Announcement of full year results
paulson games wrote: Does anyone else picture this being written on shaky hands after downing a bottle of Bourbon and all the while contemplating eating the business end of a revolver?
Paulson, as someone who was wrongly and unnecessarily involved in the beginning of the legal proceedings mentioned in the preamble, can you (within the terms of your settlement and/or NDA) confirm or deny that someone stole GW's hog? I suspect the UK legal system is better set up to deal with Grand Fish and Chips Theft than the subsequent post-colonial system we have here.
I don't care about that. I want to know his opinion on 3d printers and how he is planning for it.
Agies Grimm:The "Learn to play, bro" mentality is mostly just a way for someone to try to shame you by implying that their metaphorical nerd-wiener is bigger than yours. Which, ironically, I think nerds do even more vehemently than jocks.
Everything is made up and the points don't matter. 40K or Who's Line is it Anyway?
Auticus wrote: Or in summation: its ok to exploit shoddy points because those are rules and gamers exist to find rules loopholes (they are still "legal"), but if the same force can be composed without structure, it emotionally feels "wrong".
