Several years could mean 2 years. 2021 looks nice, 2025 looks depressing. I just hope we're all still alive when the game releases.

That 2 year silent period doesn't sound alarming to me. I think it's quite a short time to develop a game from scratch though I hope they already got started with something. And I don't think that was imposed on them by Brad but suggested willingly by Paul. Over beer. In that very picture. At least it satisfies Brad's trademark concerns with GotP and timed perfectly well until the new game's release or at least an announcement.

In any case, I'm expecting UQM2 to be released in 2021.

This is exactly the outcome I'm hoping for. Let's hope that's what it is, and not F&P giving up everything.

I'd laugh if that were the case (giving up all copyrights). Not because I think that's what they deserve, but because it's ridiculous.

Wow. What an uneventful close to this rollercoaster chapter.

Ah, I see Brad eventually falls into his usual pattern of resorting to personal insults.  Keep a thick skin, don't take his bait, and let us know if this becomes another example of him banning people for politely disputing the Stardock position.

I agree that bringing up the 1988 agreement was irrelevant to the topic, though, as the initial point Brad made was that (according to him) F&P's arguments in the Injunction Junction post don't hold water, and that their DMCA notices serve no purpose but to harm Stardock for no good reason.

I agree I may have veered off topic. I was only replying to a post about how P&F were adamant at using the "Star Control" mark to refer to GotP and retweeting other posts - that resulted to the USD 225k damages that Stardock was demanding for their settlement proposal; pointing out the questionable weight of the damages when even Brad enthusiastically echoed the same announcement before the lawsuits. It then went to the classic "they brought the lawyers first and hired a PR campaign" which ended in me bringing up the 88 agreement. Oh well.

So, I was posting a bit in the Stardock forums (hello to Stardock lurkers who read this) and some users there had this to say about why the 1988 Agreement is still in effect...

Seldon seems like a reasonable person, and they're doing the work of supplying linked references, which I appreciate, but they're quoting Stardock's FAQ as though it were gospel, when it is, of course, at least as one-sided as P&F's blog.  For one thing, I don't think we can take Stardock's word about what P&F wanted during settlement negotiations without evidence, just as we were hesitant to take P&F's word about what Stardock was demanding until they showed the settlement proposals.  

Regarding settlement advances, I don't think Stardock has ever said so directly, but I suspect that they are relying on §5.1 of Addendum 3, in which Accolade agreed to advance $20,000 in royalties to Paul, in $10k/5k/5k installments.  However, that section specified that these were advances against royalties payable under §5.2 of Addendum 3, and §4.1 terminated that Addendum three years after signing because Accolade never released a game under it.  Once that Addendum expired in 2001, I doubt that those advances could be applied to the $1000/year required under §2.2 of the original agreement.

Plus, we have Atari's emails indicating that it agreed that the agreement had terminated, and as Krulle indicated, §7.1 of the original agreement would have terminated it upon Atari's bankruptcy.

Ah, I see Brad eventually falls into his usual pattern of resorting to personal insults.  Keep a thick skin, don't take his bait, and let us know if this becomes another example of him banning people for politely disputing the Stardock position.

It's unfortunate that once I brought up clause 2.2 of the agreement, they just cut the discussion and instead went back to talking about DMCA abuse and how P&F acted immorally, etc, and that I, personally, am justifying their actions. I really did want to know why Stardock thinks it's invalid - to quote Jafo: "This is where people fall down.....quoting specifics in isolation, as if since it's written down somewhere it must be true and absolute" - without really elaborating. Combine that with Frogboy's "enough" I might as well just leave it at that. For a party claiming P&F do not really own the classic SC copyrights, they sure are really salty about people bringing up the one document that could answer all their questions - the '88 agreement.

To the Stardock users who happen to read this, I hope you can help shed light on Stardock's mysterious interpretation of the contract's texts. It's been a mystery for the last year or so.

So, I was posting a bit in the Stardock forums (hello to Stardock lurkers who read this) and some users there had this to say about why the 1988 Agreement is still in effect:

https://forums.stardock.com/492870/page/4/#3739870

If there are no sales of the game, the royalties due are zero. This does not constitute a cessation of payment of royalties, this would only be the case if there were sales made for which they were not paid. They were in fact paid the zero dollars due on zero sales.

Zero royalties where there are no sales would be within the terms of such a contract...unless there was some annual fee or something - outside the concept of sales/returns/royalties...

Atari did acknowledge in 2011 that the license had lapsed following Reiche's opposition of the initial sale of the classic SC games on GOG. But assuming Atari did not:
1. Are the above claims valid per the 1988 agreement?
2. Assuming SC1&2&3 weren't sold anywhere (which is counter to a publisher's job) thereby resulting to zero sales for 3+ years, does that mean the license is still active?
3. Is there any available sales figures that indeed points to zero sales of the classic games during the time P&F assumed expiry of the license?

I'm not a fan of that particular argument by P&F either, but the fact that Stardock was poised to release "Chenjesu" and "Arilou" DLCs and included the Zoqfotpik, Frungy, Precursors, Arilou-not-Arilou, etc in the game and the fact that Stardock applied trademarks for essentially everything in SC1 & 2, even Fwiffo, and with the on-going litigation, kind of strengthens P&F's argument.

Without all those stunts, yes, I might sympathize with Stardock on that one argument.

...Brad's response to that was something along the lines of "This is an amazing post." I know people who only want to hear self-affirming things, and by and large they don't respond like that to serious criticism.

There are other people. Then there's Brad. He's been like that for as long as I've seen him post. I can't recall a time when he hasn't done an appreciative post - especially when the OP is of top-notch quality and most especially if it comes from a new poster - even if he doesn't agree with it. We've seen it when P&F first sent DCMAs to the classic games last year- and I've sided and sympathized with him before all the info was available. He maintains a PR stance he defaults to as a CEO of a company and it's usually done to sway the other party to his side and see things from his perspective. Most people do it- even I do. But his problematic behavior starts when he can't convince people to his reasoning - resorting to ad hominem (and in extreme cases doxxing). One thing's for certain about him: if it's about his interests, there's no changing his mind.

The inclusion of the ZFP and Zebranky in SCO, as well as F&P having sued Valve and GOG, is also being discussed on SCO's forum. One post by Brad is particularly notable:

Broadly speaking, I am hopeful for a resolution where the sc2 related creatives strictly go to them and they stop trying to use/take the Star Control trademark and stop trying to interfere with our game. I think that’s the cleanest solution.

I think this is precisely the solution we are all hoping here for. This was exactly the solution proposed in F&P's March 22 settlement agreement. So why exactly hasn't this happened yet, damn it? I really hope it's only about the differences in how each side interprets "SC2-related creatives" and "using the Star Control trademark", and that these differences can be reconciled. Because the alternative is that at least one of the sides is lying about their intentions – and that would make settlement impossible.

Don't get your hopes up. It's the typical rhetoric using "hopeful behind-the-scenes developments" coming from Frogboy to appease and pacify SCO fans genuinely concerned about copyright infringement. Honestly, he has made a fool out of me several times and seeing him use the same tactic to unsuspecting fans makes me sick.

This was urged on by the community. The threads in question are publicly available for anyome to read and verify.
But like I said, we aren’t the ones who pushed for this. If UQM doesn’t want to sign an agreement, then don’t.

So noble of Stardock to want to "protect" the UQM open source project - almost out of the blue... until people read what the CEO really thinks of the community. Have some shame please. It's sickening.

Just to note where I think this plays into the case:

Stardock's application to register the "Ur-Quan Masters" trademark has recently been delayed because they have not been able to provide a valid proof of use in commerce.

Nice catch.

It's so easy to demonize the guy now that I pinch myself to check if I'm in some kind of soap opera. The fact that he is lashing out at a community that became increasingly hostile only because of his actions and his company's aggressive legal strategy is truly dumbfounding.

You were right all along Elestan. I wasn't a 100% in when you mentioned it awhile back, and quite repeatedly actually, that the UQM project is in danger. I will no longer believe anything that sounds remotely reassuring from Brad Wardell that he's going to protect the open source project or anything related to settling with P&F - this includes those "there's been some positive movement behind the scenes" quotes from him (come to think of it, he's been doing it since day 1 - suggesting P&F were on board with the SCO project during its early days). At this point, Stardock most likely will try to take over the SC subreddit as well probably through the main reddit admin to silence all his critics in any SC related channels.

The above exhibits need to be framed and pinned everywhere (reddit, forums) so that people won't be fooled anymore.

I've just started playing SCO.

The Arilou are in it, though they haven't identified themselves as "Arilou". They're the same "we've been watching you for a long time" mysterious race of SC2. The BG music is a remixed version of the Arilou music in SC2.
The Arilou also mentioned the Precursors, that they've vanished, that they left technology for us etc....

---I'll get back to playing now...

The Maelnum have nothing in common with the Melnorme from SC2. Their histories are different. Their motivations are different. They don’t even have starships.

So no reason to be called Maelnum other than "I can".
 

It's more along the lines of "when old fans see that X race in SCO , they will be elated."

More duped if these are indeed non infringing ones. To be honest, it kind of devalues the alien because people will have expectations. But yes, I agree the name is pointless if it's a completely different alien anyway other than to stir the pot, and gain some more goodwill from the SC2 fanbase. /s