The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 07, 2020, 05:13:36 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 70
91  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 30, 2019, 12:55:26 pm
Thank you.
Didn't want to go to Wayback machine.

So, some has had a commercial use for "Frungy", but that seems to be more than 15 years ago, so the trademark may have lapsed anyway....

Also, the link to the file server "fileplanet" results in no such file, and fileplanet's search also does not help.
But what did I expect anyway?
92  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 30, 2019, 06:58:59 am
Pretty sure they'll find a SCII game somewhere they caan snapshot from and pretend...
It is similar enough....
93  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Making the Galaxy embrace Juffo-Wup on: January 30, 2019, 06:57:04 am
Upload the images to a hostingbservices, then use [img] tags to link to those hosted images....
94  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Making the Galaxy embrace Juffo-Wup on: January 29, 2019, 12:04:55 pm
Feel free, you're always welcome transforming the Non to Void, and spreading Juffo-Wup at the same time.
95  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 29, 2019, 11:48:39 am
And just shows that it has been created by the game designers.

This is getting ridiculous (the trademarks application battle).

I remember a very old game someone made.
You used a ZFP-Stinger to push a ball around and try to push it into the opponent's goal.
He named it Frungy.
I think that was closest to what I ever saw of Frungy being used in commerce.
The game never really caught on.
It's so long ago, my google-Fu fails me....
96  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 27, 2019, 08:21:58 am
And in B5 you have a "flow", pushing ships off-course.... (and making rescue operations difficult to impossible - whereas in SC2 rescue operations are "simple" - ask the Mael-Num)

Anyway, they (B5) are not being accused of having stolen copyright from SC2.
Since Babylon 5 does not pretend to continue or contain any settings, races, events from SC2, the creators of SC2 had no fear that they might become barred from continueing their own story, a situation which is different with Origins, especially because the CEO announced he will have and use it all...
So, even legally there is a completely different story to tell.
97  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 26, 2019, 10:05:16 pm
GotP is intended to answer certain questions raised in the UQM storyline.
To avoid conflicting stories, F&P denied any licensing.
The HyperSpace thing may actually be something they might have been able to live with, had Stardock not annoinced that any and all races of previous Star Control games will be part of Origins.

And yes, Accolade tried to evolve the Star control storylines gradually, to have continuity in storyline, yet also moving away from any copyrightable elements in UQM, so that rather soon they would be only within their own IP rights....


One Question to all those saying there is no infringement....
If Origins would have one character appearing, haveing a flash-formed scar on its forehead, and all his actions are so advanced they seem like magic to us, and its name is Harry Topper, would anyone think this is infringing (or at least leaning on) the copyright of Ms. J. Kathleen Rowling?
Because for printed books, this has already been decided.
But for computer games apparently many think developers are free to continue (and lean on) other's copyrights.

(And whether HyperSpace is copyrightable may depend on the jury.
But I don't remember anything approximately the age of SC2 to have a red-shifted background when flying FTL....
But then, I also only played StarFlight for less than half an hour, so never came that far...)
98  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Augmented reality game to save the world on: January 25, 2019, 06:58:21 am
It's not happening today, and even then I could not pinpoint which post caused this. It happened on pages 4 and 5 of this thrad, but as I write, right now it's not happening...
99  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Augmented reality game to save the world on: January 22, 2019, 11:49:12 am
Why do I get a popup that Archania is aksing me for a password, when I visit this site?

(And the warning includes a warning that the password entered will not go to the site visited (uqm.stack.nl) but to archania.org....)

Can you please modify the behaviour of the host of the linked images, Zanthius?
100  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 22, 2019, 09:04:51 am
I know the car designer lost the case. First instance and on appeal.

There's pacman's (vs. K.C. Munchkin) case too, lost on first instance, on appeal it was found to be copyright infringement.
There's the case Stardock hammers on, Street Fighter, which lost the first instance (no copyright infringement), but if I remember correctly, that case never went to appeal (appeal courts seem to have a stricter stance than first case instances). Also in streetfighter the complainant (copyright owner) too a special approach, which automatically meant large parts of the game's copyright would be indefensible, due to the tactic relying on specific details only, and those details were found to be differing sufficiently.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/55078/11-times-video-games-led-lawsuits: pacman is case 2;
http://patentarcade.com/2005/08/case-capcom-v-data-east-nd-cal-1994-c.html for the Street Fighter II case, preliminary injunction to forbid sales (no final decision).

Note: The streetfighter case is a lot less clear cut than Starodock wants to make me believe.
In the streetfighter case, "The court did not find Data East’s [defendant] evidence persuasive, as while other outside sources may have influenced the development of the Fighter’s History characters, there was no doubt that Street Fighter II characters also provided a significant source of inspiration."
Also regarding the similarity in how the special moves were activates (button sequence): "While the Court was disturbed by these “coincidences” in some of the arbitrary control sequences, it concluded that because the control sequences did not constitute protectable expression, these isolated similarities were not actionable. "
Also, "The court found that three characters and five special moves in Fighter’s History were similar to protectable characters and special moves in Street Fighter II. ", but the final "subjective analysis of similarity"  (not objective, so not a clear cut case, an appeal court may have a different subjective feeling).
Resulting in "the court determined that Capcom had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or even serious questions concerning the merits".
Finally, the Street Fighter distributor lost, because martial art games simply have typical moves transferred from martial arts, and those cannot be copyrighted, and the button sequence often followed that move.  Read Claude Stern's passage for a short summary.

HyperSpace is not comparable to movements of the Human Body, as HyperSpace is completely fictional, and has as far as we know today no limitations based on scientific facts which could limit the copyright, as the movements of the StreetFighter characters have been limited.

I wonder if that example case will really help Stardock. As the preliminary injuction judge did find substantial similarity, but just in non-copyrightable elements... (scenes-a-faire, limitations based on movements of the Human body, limitations on how a player can control a screen character,...)


Also, I now wonder if the Street Fighter II case ever went to a final judgement, as I (in my cursory searrch) only found documents relating to the preliminary injuction to forbid sales of Fighter's History. And preliminary injunction decisions are not really comparable to full court cases....
101  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 18, 2019, 03:28:04 pm
Nope, DMCA alone only gives safe harbour status to hosting companies IF within 10 days after the takedown notice still no case has been filed by the alleged copyright holder, then the counter-notification is sufficient to retain safe harbour status.
As there is already a case ongoing, Valve would not get a safe harbour status for its Steam service.
(Or it may be an accident, as they may have been waiting for an additional letter stating that an action has been filed. Which would not been forthcoming, as the case is already before courts.)


Disclaimer: this is based on how I understood the DMCA process. It may well be that I am wrong.

Edit: (I think I am wrong)
The Counter-Notice Process

The client who is the subject of the DMCA notice, has several courses of action that they can take.

First, they can simply do nothing. If the notice was valid and the takedown was just, they can simply do nothing and accept that the work has been disabled.

Second, if the work was not infringing and the notice was either in error or malicious, the client can then file what is known as a counter-notice. That notice must contain the following elements:
[formal requriements removed]

When a counter-notice is filed, the host must then notify the person who filed the original notice and then, in a time between 10-14 business days, restore the work that was taken down. In that time, the filer of the notice has the option of seeking resolution in the courts and obtaining an injunction that will keep the work offline.

Finally, in extreme cases where the notice was false and filed knowingly so, the subscriber/user can file suit against the filer for damages including attorney’s fees and court costs.
(highlighting by me)
Apparently, to keep the work offline, the DMCA-notice sender has to get an injunction to keep the stuff online.
I have not seen F&P request a preliminary injunction (which should only have a chance if the judge would find the finding of a copyright infringement highly likely, and seeing the different opinions I've read, that seems questionable).
So, without a court order to keep the stuff (Origins) offline, apparently the hoster (Valve/Steam) should bring the stuff back online and await a court order to take it down again.

Ah well, I'm sure Valve is nto risking more than necessary, and that their understanding of the DMCA safe-harbour requirements is vastly superior to mine.
102  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 18, 2019, 11:41:06 am
Just an update for your info: Steam has put Origins on sale again.

I don't know why, but I guess Stardock guaranteed to pay any damages against Valve if a judge/jury does find the game to be copyright infringing.
103  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Fan Art! on: January 17, 2019, 09:18:02 pm
I like it!
(Well done!)
104  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 17, 2019, 08:35:25 am
I would find it very weird if any jury or judge would decide that Stardock could claim damages against the "red HyperSpace" movement...
Even if the idea came from the movement, it remains still the obligation of StarDock to check if this could lead to a copyright infringement.
No matter if fans scream for a game with "a HyperSpace exactly like the one in UQM", they make it and must therefore take care to not copy the artistic expression of others.....
And in this case this would not have required much research, as Stardock knew of the original game from which the requested feature came.

And seeing how in music they scramble over simple guitar riffs, I am astonished how few PC-game cases ever make it to court....

Anyway:
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal (comic) puts the question "Can video games be art?" in today's comic...
Nice coincidence for this topic.
But I am not Zinkydoink.
Spoiler: As usual, it does not answer the question directly.
105  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: January 16, 2019, 02:31:22 pm
Copyright does concern a product as a whole, but also certain recognisable (and potentially defining) elements of said product.
The judges and jury will have to decide on the balance of how small an element that is copyrightable in this case can be, and how large it must be to become copyrightable without covering basic stuff (having FTL-travel, the colour red, holes in hyperspace indicating locations of stars, a minimap, ...).
But the element of HyperSpace as it is expressed in SC2/UQM is by itself a pretty closed element, and can be copyrighted by itself. (Just as the character "Harry Potter" is copyrighted as such, without having the whole content of the magical world as portrayed in the books and films.)
Now jury and judges need to decide on if this form of HyperSpace used by UQM is copyrightable or still generic and the product of a general Sci-Fi setting/knowledge of science/..., and if YES (copyrightable as such), whether this HyperSpace as used in Origins is substantially similar to UQM-HyperSpace.
It's nice of Stardock to point to the Street Fighter game case law, but the Pacman case law points a different direction (and Pacman went through appeal, Street Fighter not).
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 70


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!