The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 28, 2021, 10:10:28 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8
31  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Support Dogar and Kazon, legal defense fund is up! on: July 26, 2018, 05:43:19 am
So I was literally just about to give Brad the benefit of the doubt and suggest he more likely wasn't being emotionally biased but simply was expressing what he understood to be true, and then ironically he strongly supported my original opinion of his emotional bias by banning or having someone ban me from his discord chat room.

For me that more or less settles it, because if he believed in the integrity of his claims and didn't have any intention of propaganda or possible defamation, then I think he would have understood that I have a view on an understanding of the issue just as he does or anyone else. I like Stardock's games and I continue to play them, but just to me, it seems Brad publicly has a very poor understanding of the strength of his arguments in regards to his case.

That means there is also a chance that banning me was just a facade to get away with controlling the information on his discord since what I said wasn't necessarily in his favor of his opinion in the particular argument we had, but, without the immediate appearance of that propaganda intent. Though, I gave him a fair suggestion on how he could strengthen his use of some of the SCO races in Stardock's game which would ultimately benefit his business, I still had an intention of suggesting him to avoid legal trouble too because ultimately the dispute may reflect poorly on him, though I wouldn't confuse his personal animosity with that of Stardock as a company itself. He is entitled to moderate his chat room of course, but it doesn't make his claims any more logical, and now because I'm banned, I can't converse with him to determine if his claims seem more fair to me, so now I'm stuck with the conclusion that it seems more likely to me that he had and/or has an emotional bias.
32  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Support Dogar and Kazon, legal defense fund is up! on: July 26, 2018, 04:14:32 am
From a lot of different sources, looking at copyright/trademark laws, talking with both parties and neutral third parties, looking at these legal videos recently brought up, my own conclusion is that Stardock is almost assuredly in the wrong in their overall claims. They are certainly right that the trademark is theirs, but that should be irrelevant because Fred and Paul openly stated time and time again that they never want nor need the Star Control trademark.

What it seems to me Stardock has done, though likely mainly Brad's orders, is infringe on the copyright of Fred and Paul's creative work by intentionally deriving from their characters within the same industry, and then tried to use that infringement as a means of filing the trademarks for Fred and Paul's races which itself is an additional violation.

These are definitely audacious and risky moves for Stardock from my perspective, so it doesn't quite make sense their company would insist on these claims unless a more emotional motivation was involved or that there was an actual malice of Stardock towards Fred and Paul to intentionally cause them harm with defamation and with a loss of business. I can see that the same kind of perspective might be true of Brad though, that perhaps he perceives Fred and Paul to have done something similar as he seems to have claimed.
33  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 10:58:00 pm
I find it odd that Stardock claims Fred and Paul caused their company damage by misrepresenting the truth when this neutral observer also points out flaws in Stardock's claims. Anyone on the internet can suggest their own opinion on the subject, especially as verified by people like this, so I don't see as legitimate grounds for Fred and Paul's ill-intent.

However, it would more likely be related to Stardock's claims of the PR firm that allegedly used sockpuppet accounts on the Star Control subreddit to say negative things about Stardock. Though I'm unsure if Stardock legally owns or lays any claim to a subreddit.
34  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Open Access Scientific Databases on: July 24, 2018, 10:49:32 pm
Universities can also have their own public databases, just look at how popular Cornell's ArXiv is, which you can also find here https://arxiv.org/
35  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 04:18:53 am
That was where I made up my mind about the case, personally.
You can do that if you want, but a commercial online site that spams people with adds alone isn't even a credible source. I was expecting for you to post legal documents similar to those of the current case if you did not regard my comment.

It's interesting that you're expressing such a strong inclination on this particular issue. At the onset of this derail, I really only intended to express a strong distaste for the letter Stardock insisted on Fred and Paul publishing as part of their settlement offer. Who are you, again?
While you're entitled to your opinion, I will point out to you for your sake and encouraging people refrain from demagoguery as it only detracts from understanding the issue, that, for you, demagoguery delegitimizes your stance, which then delegitimizes your alleged support for Fred and Paul and reflects adversely on them when they are associated with such claims. The same is true for Stardock and people who favor Stardock. In other words, just because you perceive others to troll doesn't mean you should also troll.

My interest is research-oriented to create a more accurate understanding of my own on the issue, based on a culmination of perspectives and comparisons of both sides and neutral third parties. That's why I take the time to have correspondence with both parties. Since other people have had similar questions as many of mine and there are many aggressive comments going around, I sympathize with their curiosity and feel I should share my perspective on the subject.
36  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 03:19:37 am
As I said, it wasn't an apology; it was a requirement that P&F endorse Brad's ownership of the UQM story using a statement authored by Brad.

I could understand that then, it does explain why Brad said that UQM isn't actually safe.

The intended effect of it, as best I can surmise, was to ensure that Brad's continuation of the UQM story would be accepted by the old fans as canonical, and to keep Paul from being able to disavow it as illegitimate.  Brad couldn't gain that legitimacy in the hearts and minds of the SC2 fans if he was viewed as having taken it by force, so he tried to coerce P&F into giving the fans the false impression that they were happy with the arrangement.

I suppose that's possible, because when looking through the correspondence mentioned in Fred and Paul's countercomplaint, they claimed Brad was being misleading to the public by implying Fred and Paul were unofficially working with Stardock, which would have been a violation of Fred and Paul's alleged agreement with Activision, which, in the gaming industry, seems very likely to include a no-compete clause. So, Brad implying any work for a competing game company like Stardock might have actually gotten Fred and Paul in trouble with Activision and delayed Activision's permission for any development and announcement of content relating to Fred and Paul's sequel.

I'll leave that one to Shiver.
Even if they find it though, it doesn't seem like a very strong connection to this completely separate legal case. Bringing it up seems like the same kind of tactic Stardock itself would use to paint Fred and Paul as morally reprehensible. If they bring it up with that intention, then they are no more legitimate than the party they claim to oppose on that same moral basis.
37  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 02:22:04 am
I think you are.  Did you try following the link?
I see Fred and Paul are being asked for an apology in Stardock's complaint, but I don't know if that, on its own, is unreasonable given that it's a complex case and it is possible there are misunderstandings either side may have. Stardock clearly has a more aggressive stance, but asking for an apology alone isn't unreasonable.

They are connected in that both instances show Brad attempting to force his litigation opponent to submit to coerced speech.

I suppose I could see a loose connection that could set precedence for this possible coercion of Stardock's, but I more mean to ask why you hadn't produced actual credible references is for this sexual harassment allegation if it's true, because that's news to me and I don't think it's fair of me to make assumptions without seeing an actual report of it. It would still only be two points of data though, separated by years.

38  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 01:48:27 am
Oh, I wouldn't call it an apology; Brad complained vociferously about it being inaccurately called an apology.  And he's right; it wasn't an apology; it was a forced insincere endorsement.

I feel like I'm misunderstanding something here. It seems very out of character for Brad to complain that his apology over sexual harassment allegations wasn't actually an apology, that just obviously sounds like something that would get him into more trouble and he would probably know that. Are you talking purely about the apology Stardock wants to receive from Fred and Paul? I don't understand why the two would have a connection.
39  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 01:01:46 am
I would go to great lengths to try and stop another one of Brad's godawful 'apology' letters from being published, if that were about to happen due to lack of money.
I don't understand the context for this. Why would you not want Brad to apologize for whatever it is you're referencing?

The sexual harassment case against Brad Wardell from a few years back ended with the victim (alleged, whatever) issuing a public apology letter to Brad. Brad's joke of a settlement offer to F&P also demands that they issue a similar public apology.

I seems pretty odd if Brad were to make fun of sexual harassment, I don't see any reason to think that would be his intention if he apologized for a completely separate legal issue. Although I guess I did bring up possible issues with assumptions of gender and masculinity in one of Stardock's games and it was quickly and aggressively dismissed by Stardock staff and/or supporters, but that doesn't speak for Brad himself. I think a CEO who tries to be as contemporary as him would probably keep up with the times and make an effort to move away from that kind of behavior.
40  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 24, 2018, 12:30:42 am
It affects how much money I'm willing to donate to the legal defense fund.

I guess that's a fair point. If Fred and Paul were very rich as Stardock claims, it would probably negatively affect Fred and Paul's defense fund. I would feel less inclined to donate to them, though still ultimately do it just to assist in whatever resources they want to make their game.
Even if that were the case though, Fred and Paul do also claim to be paying out of their own pockets, whereas Stardock's legal fees seem to be mostly covered by insurance, so I feel Stardock could be hypocritical to bring up the subject.
I've seen for myself over the years that a lot fans tried to ask for themselves how they could better show or give support for Fred and Paul, so it would appear they simply gave an answer: the defense fund.  

I would go to great lengths to try and stop another one of Brad's godawful 'apology' letters from being published, if that were about to happen due to lack of money.
I don't understand the context for this. Why would you not want Brad to apologize for whatever it is you're referencing?
41  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 23, 2018, 11:45:48 pm
I've seen lists that put Paul Reiche at an estimated net worth of 19 mil.  While Brad Wardell's is estimated 1.9 million.  Both as of 2018.

Sigh...  Does it really matter?  This just seems like a distraction from the important details of the situation.  Very similar to one of those useless details they throw into word problems or diversion topics that many political folks use.  It's a very superficial metric that simple does not matter in this situation.

Well in Stardock's complaint, Stardock actually calls out Fred and Paul for being rich (though I saw no evidence for it anyway), but it is still a very emotionally charged rhetoric nonetheless, I agree that it shouldn't matter to the alleged facts that Stardock owns their trademark and Fred and Paul own their copyright to their creative content.

In talking with Brad, I get the impression he thinks Fred and Paul haven't done any work of their own and thus they aren't creators and thus their copyright is invalid, but he seems to intentionally neglect mentioning that Fred and Paul have put up some of their original game design drafts on their blog.

https://www.dogarandkazon.com/sketchbook_1/

https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/8/all-aboard-the-starship-discovery

https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/13/starship-discovery-ii



42  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / General UQM Discussion / Re: Stardock Litigation Discussion on: July 23, 2018, 10:59:17 pm
I've seen lists that put Paul Reiche at an estimated net worth of 19 mil.  While Brad Wardell's is estimated 1.9 million.  Both as of 2018.

But where do you "see" that though? That seems very clearly like private financial information, I haven't seen either Brad or Fred & Paul release information like that.
43  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Why we should not strive for complete economic equality on: July 23, 2018, 07:06:35 pm
And that's why world leaders don't limit their reactions to only specific debt holders, it's a culmination of factors that considers many different companies and policies and history, and frankly panicking about the issue just makes it worse, they don't want to have to worry about global economies collapsing.





I don't see how continuing to post big pictures logically makes you right, and frankly it's just weird to keep doing it in the middle of what should be a reasonable discussion. All you're doing is reiterating a previous opinion that is contrary to decades international relationships with no indication of change. It would be like if you typed in all caps because you somehow thought typing in all caps proved the Earth is flat, the two are unrelated. It also looks like you kept changing the subject to avoid addressing other points brought up, which didn't disappear, they're still there waiting to be addressed.
44  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Why we should not strive for complete economic equality on: July 23, 2018, 10:38:37 am
The reason why it isn't declared risky is because.....

You know that most of the debt pools that were involved in the financial crisis of 2007–2008 had triple-A rating:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the_subprime_crisis
And that's why world leaders don't limit their reactions to only specific debt holders, it's a culmination of factors that considers many different companies and policies and history, and frankly panicking about the issue just makes it worse, they don't want to have to worry about global economies collapsing.
45  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release / Starbase Café / Re: Why we should not strive for complete economic equality on: July 23, 2018, 10:21:30 am
You seem to have a lot of faith in politicians.... But what makes you think China doesn't already know?

I don't have "faith" in politicians, there are definitely corrupt politicians. But what you need to understand is that it's not quite that simple, it actually does matter a lot more what the public thinks, but you don't recognize that when you see arguments you disagree with take the spotlight.

Even if a politician disagrees with their constituents, like if for instance their constituents believe the sky is purple, senators and representatives are still compelled to agree with their constituents and would vote to rename the sky purple on behalf of their constituents, and if the issue is important enough, and they don't vote according to their constituents, they will almost surely be voted out of office. So whether public opinion matters in a democracy is indisputable, but what shapes public opinion is how corporations and the media portray different issues as important or unimportant in order to compel people to write to their representatives with particular opinions or vote for particular candidates who claim to support different political stances. Even if a decision isn't in the best interest of constituents, the people in a democracy still ultimately bear the responsibility for that, and that's why education and media are very important.

So lets take climate change. Even if a congress person believes in human climate change but their constituents tell them it's fake, they will be strongly compelled to vote according to their constituents and vote to pass bills that suggest human climate change is fake even if they don't want to. The constituents will compel their congress person to do so both directly in writing and indirectly through mass and social media, and since climate change is a volatile issue, the congress person knows they will almost certainly be voted out of office if they don't vote according to their constituents. The only realistic way this given congress person could consistently vote in favor of human-caused climate change is if their constituents also believe it to be true or don't take notice of the congress person's unfaithful voting.

Look. They are even limiting criticism of Donald Trump to protect their "false" narrative:
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/international-taxes/396539-china-orders-media-to-limit-criticism-of-trump-for-fear-of

Again, Trump doesn't hold all the power, I'm sure you've noticed by this point he boasts a lot more than what he can actually can lay claim to. I don't see an indication that Xi doesn't understand this as well.

It's like this. Lets, for example, imagine that I have deadly cancer and that there is nothing I can do to save myself. Maybe I don't want to tell my children since I know they are going to be devastated then. So, instead of telling my children, I let them keep their "false belief" about my health. At least then they can enjoy some more time with me without being devastated before I die.

But both China and the U.S. have records of their transactions in order to extrapolate the future, and the U.S. is publicly rated on the security of its currency by world-wide sources based on a long history of transactions and the health of companies in its own economy. The reason why it isn't declared risky is because it currently isn't, and the rest of the world doesn't see a legitimate reason to think it will collapse any time in the near future, that's why the dollar still has some strength, more than the yen.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 8


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!