Not really. Because even then there are restrictions.  You can't yell fire in a theater.  You can't provoke others to commit a crime. 

You have freedom to say something, but it's not freedom from consequences, legal or otherwise.

The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect people from any legal / government-inflicted consequences of their speech.

The more philosophical concept of "Free Speech" is that if you make consequences for speech too harsh, you get a censorious society ala the novel 1984.

It is absolutely about freedom from consequences, just not all of them - people are welcome to dislike you, disagree with you, and even debate you. But a mod banning you is absolutely an abridgment of Free Speech, and a government agency doing it is a violation of the First Amendment.

Of course, the mods are welcome to care or not care about Free Speech to the degree they choose, and I think that Death's stance is a healthy one.

What "provably wrong statements" is Stardock currently pushing?

They've claimed that:
1) the trademark lawsuit was required of them due to the DMCA complaints
2) they have a legal obligation to use the SC 1+2 races in SC:O as a result of P&F's recent actions
3) that they have no interest in using ANY of P&F's IP, despite having tried to sell the classic DOS games and included copyrighted "homages" in SC:O proper

They also gave their word that they wouldn't use the SC 1+2 races, but are now apparently including the Arilou and the Melnorme. So, not exactly "provably wrong" or "currently pushing", but still an example of them going back on their very clearly stated, public stance.

Claims that are less clear-cut wrong:
4) They claim that P&F's posting of the settlement was illegal. I think this is *very* likely to be wrong, since no judge has ordered them to take them down.
5) They claim that P&F lack both the copyrights AND trademarks that would have been required to legally publish The Ur-Quan Masters: Stardock says that P&F don't actually own some/most of the copyrights to the game, and that use of the alien race names would require a trademark license.

What if it turns out that P&F were actually the "bad guys"?
And don't just say "That's not possible" I want an honest answer of how you would react if you found out
that P&F were way overreaching their assumed copyright and were out to make Stardock look
like the bad guy.

If P&F timed their post just to take the wind out of SC:O's sales, and aren't actually planning to produce GOTP, I'd be upset with them, but I'd also be really curious what the heck Stardock did to piss them off that badly, because that's a lot of risk to take just to spite someone else. I'd still have trouble seeing them as the bad guys, because that seems like a level of spite you only reach when someone has legitimately wronged you, and I don't see anything in Stardock's behavior that would warrant that.

If we take the above as given, and add that P&F try to use the DMCA to sabotage SC:O's release (or something similar), I would... probably finally concede that they've gone "bad apple" but I would still be bewildered that such cool froods, who I've occasionally exchanged words with, would do this.

I tend to assume they're not the bad guys, because eating a cool two million in legal fees is... well, taking it REALLY far, y'know? And if they know they don't have a case, they'd probably rather eat a private settlement instead. If they just wanted to be disruptive, there's substantially less risky ways to do it, and I would've expected them to back down before they were legally on the line for a large payout to Stardock.

Some Stardock fans have been saying that GotP is nothing but a hoax created solely to ruin Stardock's sales and reputation, and, given that there's been absolutely no information on GotP so far, we have no way of countering that.

That seems really easy to counter: lawsuits are ridiculously expensive. They would basically only do this if they just... *hated* Stardock, with a fiery burning passion. We're talking Orz-and-Arilou levels of loathing, here. And... if they just loathed and despised Stardock, they would have spoken out earlier and said "Halt! This sequel is not blessed by us!" both in private and public. P&F could have utterly ruined this project from Day 1 just by talking (perfectly legal) trash about how it's going to be another SC3, doesn't have their blessing, etc. etc. without any risk of legal action. They might not have looked great, but if they're never planning to visit the universe themselves, why care about that?

The other obvious counter: P&F mention wanting to return to this universe even as far back as the 2013 emails that Stardock themselves included in their Q+A. You can find other public records going back further, along with explanations for why such a return hasn't been viable for them until now.

And the third counter: If they really just wanted to trash Stardock, they could probably have negotiated a settlement that said "okay okay, fine, we won't make GOTP" and walked away without having the huge expense of a lawsuit.

Another Stardock employee implied that Fred and Paul may be facing criminal charges for their DMCA takedown attempts. How likely do you think that is?

From what I've heard, you can only really face criminal charges if you were lying when you attested that you *believed* you were acting on behalf of the copyright owner. So if *I* went and threw a DMCA notice at the Star Control games, yes, criminal charges. But it would be really difficult to prove that P&F *knew* they weren't the copyright holders. And, as far as I can tell, they really are the copyright holders, which would make the issue moot...

Similarly, P&F called their game "Ghost of the Precursors" and not Star Control anything. I've still seen lots of game professionals comfortably celebrate the anniversary of games they worked on, even if they played a minor role. Even if they don't own any IP in it as a lowly programmer. Box art and all. Courts aren't shutting that down either.

They called it "Ghost of the Precurors, a Star Control 2 sequel", which is very much Star Control something.

"We are now working on a direct sequel to Star Control II" goes well past "celebrating an anniversary". Announcing a commercial sequel to someone else's trademark seems like a really blatant violation of trademark. Do you think I could get away with writing a direct sequel to Harry Potter?

(that said, I think the actual damage was much less than Stardock asserts - P&F were clearly in the wrong to misuse the trademark, but at the time it was mild enough that Stardock just rolled with it and went "huzzah, we're also happy to see that sequel get made", and at this point the announcement has been edited not to violate trademarks)

That's even ignoring the fact that Stardock used their announcement to literally sell SC1-3 on Steam, without permission

Stardock asserts that the rights to sell SC1-3 are part of what they purchased. Given that Accolade made the same mistake when it put the games up on GOG.com, it seems fairly plausible to believe that Stardock was given inaccurate/outdated information.

Brad asserts back in 2013 that he acquired "publishing rights for the original trilogy". Given the emails P&F posted with Accolade, it seems likely that Stardock did NOT actually acquire full publication rights, but I can see how they 100% believed they had those rights, and P&F missed a chance to correct them about this four years ago...

Was Atari's transfer of the trademark's without any license to the copyright legitimate?

Atari/Accolade held the trademark separate from the copyright for quite some time, so clearly the two can be "sold separately". I think a better question is: can Stardock actually *use* the trademark, if they don't license any of the copyrighted content?

When I brought up the idea of "assignment of goodwill", I was actually trying to make a point in Stardock's favor: Atari was asserting that this sale gave Stardock sufficient assets as to make a proper Star Control game, otherwise the sale would have been invalid.

It also seems that "assignment of goodwill" has become much less legally important in the last couple decades - https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1555&context=facscholar seemed like a pretty good overview on the issue.

[TL; DR:]

We only began to register the marks for the aliens, AFTER they started implying they may have some rights to Galactic Civilizations, a game and universe I’ve spent my entire adult life on while simultaneously trying to cancel our Star Control trademark. It’s not about retaliating, it is about making very clear what our IP rights are and to eliminate confusion on who has what rights.

74.

On December 3, 2015, Wardell emailed Reiche and Ford and asked if they would be interested in licensing the alien races from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games for another Stardock game called Galactic Civilizations III. Reiche and Ford later learned that Wardell had already “borrowed” heavily from Star Control II for the Galactic Civilizations game. Wardell previously described the back story for Galactic Civilizations as follows:

I must admit, I borrowed some concepts from Star Control 2. The Precursors were
not lifted from Babylon 5 or Stargate or whatever. They were inspired from Star
Control 2. I always dreamed that there’d be a SC3 that would expand on who these
Precursors and the extra-dimensional beings. I have no idea what they had in mind
but I thought it was a very cool concept.

He elsewhere admitted that “using the in-game custom race creator, I have also made the Ur-Quan (from Star Control) … .”

 - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html
(page 15)

In fact, Wardell revealed previously that a ship from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games, the Earthling Cruiser, had already been constructed within Galactic Civilizations III. Reiche and Ford later learned that many ships and alien races from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games appeared in Galactic Civilizations.

- (same source, page 16)

Star Control: Origins also includes a ship-creator tool that allows players to easily recreate ships from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games and then share them with all other players, as Wardell and Stardock had previously done in its other game Galactic Civilizations.

- (same source, page 17)

I don't really see anything here that would be considered a huge attack on Stardock's rights to GalCiv, just an effort to establish that yes, Stardock has a history of "borrowing" from Star Control 2, and has outright admitted to using their custom modding tools for (presumably personal, non-commercial, and therefor legal?) copyright violation.

In particular, there is not any "cause for action" asking the courts to actually do anything in regards to the GalCiv points.

I'd also point out that if we want to dredge up petty legal claims, Stardock's own filing asserts that P&F are not the creators of Star Control, and in much stronger language than this "attack" on Gal Civ.

TL; DR: They only seem to be "attacking" GalCiv as a minor supporting point, and don't seem to be claiming any rights to it (except possibly the right to ensure their copyrighted material is not recreated using custom modding tools, but again, plenty of games have those so that seems pretty indefensible?)

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.

I do think svs was rather a problem, since if it was really so terribly wrong as to be worth his time to call it out as "deceptive" then... it was probably worth a 30 minute basic rebuttal? I can't fathom spending that much time writing content-free replies, when a single knowledgeable reply probably could change a few minds around here. But Frogboy has, by and large, offered substantial replies and actual information - the occasional "just Google it", but I honestly felt my own foray in to Googling it was pretty productive.

And, for what it's worth, I have found this thread (and others like it elsewhere) rather educational. Coming in to this, it felt like Stardock was "obviously" in the wrong, because at heart I am a huge fangirl of Fred and Paul. Hearing Frogboy explain himself has helped me get a better perspective on a lot of it. I can see why he's angry. I can even see why it came to a legal battle. I still think he's doing a disservice to the fandom if he stops "Ghosts of the Precursors" from using Orz and Arilou, because the story I've wanted to hear has always been Fred and Paul's story of what comes next with those races and that plot. But I can at least understand why he'd be angry enough to talk about that.

Unfortunately, you are misrepresenting what the law actually is on this subject based on a cursory summary you found. The danger of a non-attorney stepping into legal analysis is that said individual "doesn't know what they don't know." A little bit of legal knowledge can be a dangerous thing. Your posts are really no different than me stating, "I am not a doctor, but based on this summary I found online, <point 1> and <point 2>  means I believe you likely have cancer." I have no real basis for making that determination. You have no real basis for what you have been posting. Your sprinkling in of legal terminology is implying a degree of knowledge that you actually lack.

I just want to remind everyone, again, that Elestan actually does not know the law. Simple summaries of specific areas of a legal subject matter are not inclusive enough to give one anymore than an extremely basic, general understanding of broad concepts. Such summaries are *completely* useless when trying to apply the law to the specific facts of a real dispute.

I mean, Frogboy was literally saying this was so simple it could be resolved by Googling the matter, and I'd expect he knows more about the matter than you  do, svs. What makes you think you know enough to dismiss Frogboy's advice here?

And how come you keep harping on Elestan specifically? I feel left out ;-(

What I mean is you can literally google on what grounds you can oppose a trademark and work it from there.

My own efforts at doing this:

Taking it as a given that the original Trademark was valid, and purchased by Stardock:

• The trademark could be argued to be diluted (but UQM is non-commercial use and doesn't count)
• [ ... a lot of obviously inapplicable reasons ... ]
• The mark has been abandoned (I have no clue how UQM's continued use of the mark affects this)
• The mark falsely suggests a connection with the opposer
• A trademark can be opposed if the mark or symbol [...] creates a false connection with an unrelated company
• In many cases, the former owner must also transfer all assets used to create trademarked items to the new owner to guarantee that standards of quality and production don’t take consumers by surprise because of the transfer.

P&F contest that you don't have a license to the assets, at which point it seems a lot more problematic.

And on the other hand, if "the former owner must also transfer all assets used to create trademarked items", then it seems really reasonable to assume that any sale of the trademark... had to actually include a license to the assets, otherwise it would be invalid. So Stardock had every reason to assume they DID own the assets. That doesn't that they were Atari's to sell in the first place, but it does explain why Stardock would feel comfortable taking it as a given.

If we take it as given that Stardock *did* acquire a license to the assets, then the only remaining reason seems to be "argue it was abandoned" (which seems dicey given the existence of the UQM continuing the use of that trademark). So, pretty clear cut indeed.

If we instead assume that P&F have exclusive rights to the assets, then... Google totally fails me when it comes to the question of how to handle it when the copyright and trademark are owned by different companies. Very much outside the range of "just Google it."

I personally think it's premature to assume that P&F are in the wrong here, but neither would I assert that they've got it correct. I can't imagine a conflict like this forming if both sides didn't genuinely think they were in the right.

Accolade knew of "The Ur-Quan Masters" use of "Yehat", and did not object, thereby forfeiting the Mark.

http://www.iusmentis.com/trademarks/crashcourse/limitations/#Noncommercialuseofatrademark seems pretty clear on non-commercial use not applying, unless it dilutes or parodies the trademark, neither of which applies here?

(I'm open to correction. Again, I'm not a lawyer - just following the invitation to work it out from Google )

Compare that to say Kaminawa. No history. No evidence of having posted anywhere. Could just be a lurker using a different handle. Could also be an interested party’s daughter wanting to participate under an alias.  

I've been on Reddit for five years, and if you can't find evidence of me posting anywhere elsewhere it speaks rather poorly of you.  I'll admit I don't discuss Star Control much anymore. If anyone here is old enough to remember the ancient 90s/00s Star Control 2 RPG forums, I was much more active back then as "goto-10" *waves at any super old-school fans*

I've no relationship to any of the interested parties - I'm just an old fan of the series. I've played out a few collaborations with other fans to tell various versions of the story, so I've got nothing against the idea of Stardock throwing their own ideas in to the multiverse - but I've also spent the last couple of decades hoping that someday we'd finally get the sequel Paul & Fred always talked about making. When Stardock announced Ghost of the Precursors, I got excited and started drifting back towards this community.

How much confusion was caused when Stardock announced that Paul and Fred were making a true sequel?
How much confusion was caused when Stardock doubled down by giving Paul and Fred their blessing in every interview and announcement?
How much confusion was caused when Stardock talked about a multiverse where Star Control 2 was a separate continuity, reserved for Paul and Fred's sequel?
How much confusion was caused when Stardock insisted that the only way you'd see the SC2 aliens again is if Paul and Fred were directly involved?
How much confusion was caused by over a decade of calling Paul and Fred the creators, who are planning and working on a sequel, without a challenge from Atari (let alone Stardock)?

It's not as cut and dry as other Trademark infringement cases. It's pretty rare that a plaintiff would openly use their Trademark to describe the defendant's work -- past, present, or future, let alone all of the above -- and then sue the defendant anyway. This is the only time I've ever heard of a company doing that. It's unprecedented.

For Paul and Fred's sake, I hope they don't try to use those arguments in court.  Those are appeals to emotion. Not law.

My understanding of trademark law is that there is something of a "use it or lose it", I believe legally referred to as "laches" (but I Am Not A Lawyer)? And rather than meet their announcements with a take-down notice or a trademark complaint, you actually signal-boosted and endorsed their announcement. That seems like more than an appeal to emotion - that seems like a pretty reasonable appeal to the "use it or lose it" facet of trademark. You yourself are now partly responsible for the confusion, because you yourself were responsible for spreading that idea. I can literally quote you, the trademark holder, describing GotP as "a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."

"I am pleased to inform campers everywhere that Paul and Fred have announced a canon follow-up to Star Control II" are not the words of someone defending their trademark.

Maybe I'm wrong about the legal principles here (again, I'm not a lawyer), but from an ethical and emotional  standpoint, it feels very confusing to see P&F being attacked for something you were previously PLEASED to stand behind. Even if you have the legal right to say "take-backsies", I think you do yourself a disservice by not being diplomatic about it. This continued focus on them "causing confusion and inflicting damages" seems especially strange when you yourself helped sow that confusion.