The way I see it, Stardock is much more than just Brad Wardell. And by buying SCO you reward Stardock's creative efforts, not the lawsuit that's now concluded anyway.

That's a fair attitude, I'd agree that Stardock is more than just one person. On the other hand, last I knew it is Wardell's privately held company, so it's not quite like buying a game from a publicly held corporation with a CEO you might dislike but who is essentially just a very well paid employee of the organisation (and might very well be replaced in a few years anyway). There are concrete ways in which you are directly supporting Wardell the individual in buying Stardock games. If you take issue with EA CEO Andrew Wilson for any reason, buying EA games does not support him in the same way.

Obviously in the end, of all the things to take ethical stands on, space videogames are some of the least important. But for me, if I care about the games or the situation at all, I kind of have to factor this stuff into my decisionmaking.

Yes, this outcome is definitely for the best. The current state of things leaves me with a very uncomfortable question: Would I buy the next Star Control game that Stardock has in the pipe? I genuinely have no idea. As an old fan who's painfully aware of the details of the lawsuit, I feel like my answer should be "no". As a profoundly selfish person and as a gamer who just wants his entertainment, my answer should be "yes". Knowing that Brad Wardell tried to trick the core team into handing over rights to UQM, that should be a hard "no" again. Also knowing that every person I've ever met is screwed up in some fashion and being a big believer in forgiveness, there's more reason for "yes". The lawsuit's resolution seems perfectly tailored to make this choice difficult, at least for me. A question for later.

That's also a good description of my thought process. I like space games, I'm also a big believer in forgiveness, and I don't particularly enjoy holding grudges. On the other hand, Wardell's bad behaviour both in regards to this lawsuit debacle and the UQM project (not to mention other incidents outside the scope of Star Control or this community) has been pretty longstanding and he's not really shown any contrition or even really acknowledgement that he did anything wrong that I've seen. And even though I think the notion of forgiving people even when they don't apologize is a noble one, I also don't like actively supporting people who act arrogantly, petulantly or unfairly when they show no regret for their actions (because it sets a bad standard).

So I think it's still going to be a no from me, but who knows. If nothing else, I'd consider at least buying a new game on Humble Bundle and sending the cash charity-wards.

The Umgah change is very welcome. After playing the Melnorme for years the aim-assist takes some getting used to, but I like that the option's there. It's been a long time since I looked at the game though -- did you adjust any point values since the last iteration of the mod to compensate for some of these (relative) nerfs/buffs or do you think most of these are just minor thematic or quality-of-life stuff?

Wow, I never expected to see another release of Timewarp. Lots of nostalgia for this project and all the novel ship designs. Would love to see some work done on netplay, maybe we could get some net melee going in the IRC or something!

Windows installer works fine on W7 by the way.

In what way would spitballing ideas publicly possibly enable a settlement? You aren't negotiating with the public -- we have no say in the matter. If you have an offer, you can still bring it to the opposing side of the dispute. Speaking publicly serves no real purpose other than trying to do PR for your company, which is fine, but there isn't any relevance here to a legal conclusion.

I’m not talking about Stardock (or PF) posting proposals. I am talking about Stardock (or PF) being able to participate in any of the many, many discussions and opine on various ideas that are posted to speed up the process. If you think lawyers “spitball” proposals back and forth you would be mistaken.  It’s a slow, arduous process. If you look back at the start of all this, I suggested PF and I talk to each other. I think you might be surprised at how much the system works to prevent direct discussions.

I didn't say anything about how I thought the negotiation process between your lawyers worked. I only suggested that a restriction on your ability to discuss settlement matters with the public doesn't seem to have any bearing on whatever that negotiation process is and how it plays out. You're making a claim that "participating in the ... many discussions ... that are posted" will "speed up the process" -- if you're not participating in public discussions by offering actual proposals to the other side (as you sensibly deny intending), then I don't see how you would be doing anything but stirring the pot and doing PR. If you are having difficulty communicating with the other side, talking to us (the public) is not a substitute.

In what way would spitballing ideas publicly possibly enable a settlement? You aren't negotiating with the public -- we have no say in the matter. If you have an offer, you can still bring it to the opposing side of the dispute. Speaking publicly serves no real purpose other than trying to do PR for your company, which is fine, but there isn't any relevance here to a legal conclusion.

The takeaway your original graphic seems to be proposing is that we ought to stop listening to what polarized left or right wing political speakers have to say. This seems wholly wrong to me -- if polarization is happening (and I don't disagree that it is) then we should be examining what is dividing them and why each side feels strongly about the issues which separate them. Of course we should think critically about what each side says, but to think critically you can't ignore them. How does each side justify its strong beliefs? What are the outcomes of following each set of beliefs to their logical (most extreme) conclusion?

The divisiveness of certain issues is not noise. It's a signal. It usually indicates injustice or harm being done to which there is resistance on one side and a desire to perpetuate it on the other. Our job as socially conscious observers and agents should be to tease apart which is which where possible and find which ideologies and policies are fair and beneficial and which demand or cause the exploitation or suffering of people.

 

  Even if the battle ended today...  do you folks still see GotP being made?

I can't imagine FF & PR3 investing this much time and money in the legal efforts and taking time off working for Activision if they weren't serious about making GotP. No one can be sure any game will be good before it gets released, but I'd say every game those two have made that's not explicitly aimed at children has been pretty good to great (and I've heard Skylanders is even pretty decent if you have the money to burn). Plus Paul's clearly been putting some thought into the background/lore already based on his posts in the forum. I'd definitely be in full hype mode if all the legal clouds left the sky.

If Stardock successfully trademarks all the species names, that's a problem for the UQM project as well, as we'd suddenly need special dispensation to legally use those names in game. Which yes, they are very likely to initially grant, if perhaps with some stipulations about promoting their game. But that outcome definitely threatens the longterm viability of the project if those trademarks are sold, Stardock is absorbed by a larger company or the CEO simply changes his mind.

We only began to register the marks for the aliens, AFTER they started implying they may have some rights to Galactic Civilizations

Do you have any kind of direct quote from them with the implication you're suggesting? I'd like to understand the context. It certainly seems like a reach for them to be making any claim to Galactic Civilizations, outside of some kind of analogy. For example, them stating a view that your rights to use elements from SC1/SC2 is comparable to theirs to use elements from Galactic Civilizations -- no doubt you'd dispute that as well but it's materially different from an actual claim to the Galactic Civilizations material.

Those who are confident of their position should show no troubles explaining it and should seek to educate others so they understand the situation enough to arrive at the same positon.  Those that are afraid of explaining their positon often are not confident of it... or know exactly what may be revealed via explaining it.

Eh, let's not read sinister overtones in to it. I'll note that Frogboy has, at least, done us the grace of responding to us here. Fred and Paul haven't.

Yeah, I agree, we don't need to imagine conspiracies. As you say, Frogboy has been present and engaging if evasive (e.g. telling people to Google things that seem like complex questions without obvious answers) and occasionally straying into appeal to (lack of) authority fallacies especially when it comes to Elestan for some reason. I'll be honest, I don't appreciate Stardock's actions (with regard to applying for trademarks on the UQM species names, etc.) thus far but if we judge them let's judge them based on what they are actually doing, not what we imagine they might be intending.

Paul's posted in other topics on this forum and he is likely reading this one, but it seems a safe bet the exact reason he hasn't stopped by in this one is because Frogboy was already posting in it. I don't think these forums are really the appropriate venue for them to hash out disagreements and I don't think it would be doing anyone any favours for him to wade in here.

My honest belief is that Elestan's posts are deceptive and confusing to others. I don't think that is fair to the overall discussion here, or to Stardock/Brad.

The analysis of the legal situation might be of interest to me, but doesn't really contribute to my view of Stardock itself one way or the other. Elestan may be completely on the wrong track about which trademarks Stardock actually holds or what they are permitted to do with them, or the status of the 1988 agreement might be completely different than any of us are understanding it, but that doesn't really impact my view of the company. I mean, why would it? What they own is a totally different conversation to what they are doing with it. My view on the company is mostly informed by what they themselves are doing and saying.

My opinion, and you can quibble with it if you wish, is that Brad honestly did idolize Fred and Paul and he did want to pick up the mantle they left on the side of the road. Somewhere along the way, that relationship was damaged.. but I still feel that Brad intends to make the best Star Control game he can. That is better than no Star Control game.

This could all be true. Sorry if quoting the Words was painting people too much as villains, it was just a joke, I don't really think Stardock is some kind of supervillain here. I think there is a dispute, and disputes do include two parties. What I don't understand is why Stardock are taking the very aggressive stance that they are taking, not just legally but with respect to (for example) including alien names from the original games in express denial of the original designers' wishes. Stardock may even legally be in their rights to do this, but can doesn't imply ought. If you'd personally rather keep away from legal discussions with non-lawyers, I understand, we can stick with just real-world observable facts and how we feel about them.

And sure, their game probably is better than no new Star Control game, for anyone who really desperately wants a game in the same genre (it's a pretty sparse field out there). All else being equal, I'd rather see both games get made. But I'm assuming if you're here you're a fan of the original games -- are you really saying you don't find it at all disappointing that Stardock is putting blocks in the way of the game we've all been waiting decades for?

They would need our permission. Just as we’d we’d need their permission to use their IP.

Okay then. So while we can run around this in circles about what the favourability of your legal position might be (and I'm not trying to suggest anyone shouldn't be discussing that as well), as far as I can tell you are making a choice to contest FF and PR3's ability to make a game based on the creative work they originally did and lore that they own, based on a legal technicality.

I agree with CelticMinstrel that assuming Stardock is correct, then trademark law seems deeply messed up. But it's not trademark law that is somehow forcing you to employ lawyers to litigate this. That's you (and your company).

I'd also like to echo what tingkagol asked, but let me paraphrase with the following: Hold! What you are doing is wrong! Why do you do this thing?

Keep in mind, Stardock is operating as if the 1988 agreement has expired.  Otherwise, it would have included the SC2 ships and actual expressed versions of the aliens that Paul and Fred claim rights to.  It’s just too risky to operate any other way.

Moreover, as I’ve said elsewhere, at this stage we don’t want to use any of Paul and Fred’s IP. There might be some value in the ships,  But not enough to hassle with.  

Imo, it’s better if Paul and Fred use their IP themselves, especially now that they seem motivated to do something with it.  But none of that use can relate to Star Control trademarks without permission.

To clarify, are you saying that in your view FF and PR3 would be legally obligated to seek permission from Stardock not just if they wished to attach the actual Star Control name to their new game (Ghosts) but in principle to even use the names of the species which were in SC1 and SC2 (Yehat, Ur-Quan, Spathi, etc.) in Ghosts? That is, in your view they would have to rename the original aliens in order to proceed with the story in which those original aliens were presented, if they did not want to pay or otherwise compensate Stardock for the use of what you feel is your trademark?

Help me out here, I'm just really struggling to see how Stardock's actions (even if legally correct) don't amount to an attempt to place roadblocks/tolls in the way of the production of the game I'm most interested in seeing made.

I think Elestan has hedged more or less every claim he's made with the caveat that he's not a lawyer and that his analysis is based purely on public documents and information. I don't see why he should be castigated for looking at the information in front of all of us and reasoning to the best of his ability (and sharing his outlook). I don't see anyone being misled.

So while I thank for your concern, svs, I think we're all adults here -- we can decide for ourselves how much weight to put in Elestan's point of view. If it consoles your anxiety, though, I certainly do include the possibility he is fully wrong on many counts (as, it seems, does he) and I can assure you I for one have the emotional wherewithal to withstand the disappointment of being mildly surprised should the dispute resolve itself in some fashion altogether different.