|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: NEWS: Ghosts of the Precursors is coming! (Read 18425 times)
|
Mormont
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 253
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
|
Brad has been an open book ever since this started. P&F have not showed any interest in interacting with anybody except their lawyers.
If they would have just once came onto this forum, like they used to long ago, and explained everything that's got them riled up instead of bottling it in
and staying in their own private echo-chamber maybe they or we could gain some insight into what the hell is actually going on.
Brad has not been an an open book, just very vocal about broadcasting his highly selective version of events. He has gone around for months propping himself up as the adult in the room who just wanted to talk things out without mentioning that his company had already sued them, and with some ridiculous claims. (I found out there was a lawsuit back in December when I accidentally stumbled on it by a legal site, but decided to stay quiet and see how the news played out).
Their last blog post of 2017 was December 4; Stardock filed their suit December 8. I can understand why F&P would want to save their ammunition until they had everything in systematic legal form. Brad is also not technically a party to the lawsuit (Stardock is), which may give him a bit more freedom to speak publicly. Also, they have always been quick on answering my e-mails.
(snip)
Basically… Frogboy? WTF. Until this you looked like a fairly reasonable party here, just asking and being denied permission to use something, and going ahead and (mostly?) not using it, while using what you did.
TFB's complaint has one odd bit too, though:
(snip)
The only TFB action that seems off was using box art for promoting their material, which they shouldn't have done, as that was from Accolade in the first place, and I don't see anywhere that transferred that copyright or granted a license (and it wasn't a trademark, so even its expiry would not achieve this). There was plenty of in-game material they had undeniable rights to, that they could have used.
One of these infringements seems substantially greater than the other.
Not a lawyer, but having read the documents I agree with Death here. Both sides have their weak points (the argument on the trademark expiring seems iffy), but overall Stardock's complaint is absurd and F&P's case seems stronger.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 10:34:14 pm by Mormont »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1111
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Still reading the cmplaint.
Now I know where to send Christmas cards.... ;)the fina
Otherwise I sincerely hope thta this will not throw spanners imto the cogwheels of both projects.
The caes are all weak.
And the judge/jury will not be happy to have to do a case like this.
But they are final mediators. expensive ones, too.
edit: hmm, in paragraph 20, the complaint explains what Stardock purchased in Ataris bankruptcy, and refers to an asset purchase agreement of 18 July 2013, Exhibit A.
But Exhibit A seems to be the IP Assignment Agreement, which itself refers to the Purchase Agreement (last lines of first paragraph of Exhibit A). exhibit A is signed, but has no date ("closing date"). Wrong document attached? Exhibit D also seems to be IP Assignmemt Agreement...
Because I want to know what the bankruptcy deal entailed.
And the contract of 1988 is not attached. FF and PR have attached it (counterclaim Exhibits 1-3, see paragraphs 5, 10a-10c,) but it's not part of the list of docs I printed...
Seems like an expensive way for Stardock to get copies of the agreement. I'm wondering if Atari was ever able to provide them with proof they could sell what they did sell to Stardock. I was expecting this to be the first Exhibits in the Complaint.
Because all will hinge on what's written there.
If the IP was written there as Reiche's(and/or Ford's), then Stardock is on very weak basisrigjt from the start, and they can only rely on a finding of unfair use of the trademark. But if the IP was split in the original agreement(and its amendments), then it will all hinge ony very minor details.
I'm still at square one regarding making an opinion on who's right.
But I tend to lean towards FF's and PR's position.
A car designer having designed a Ferrari will always be associated with that brand, even when he later designs FIATs.
I find that a fair use of the brand name. Personal opinion.
Edit: in paragraph 18 first mention is made of Accolade owning all classic Star Control copyrights, pursuant to the 1988 agreement.
As the game was developed without FF and PR. Here it starts mixing the classic StarControl and Star Control II with Star Control 3, where the situation is different than in 1 and 2. This seems to be an attempt to distract the jury/judge, and expand all borders to the borders of the widest property, which is SC3.... in paragraph 14, "classic SC games" is defind as all three games. (SC, SC II, and SC3).
Only in paragraph 28 is SC copyrights defined to limit to SC3 copyrights.
Yet I feel the complaint is trying to encroach beyond the border of the actual copyright.
Well. I'll see how it plays out. Until then, I'm still waiting for SC:O and GotP.
further edit: (to keep new posts on topic)
Complaint paragraph 52: the GOG sales agreement was part of the contracts Stardock bought, and listed in the assets when Atari went bankrupt. I distinctly remember having seen that as part of the agreements. Yet I miss all references to that in the Complaint. Hence why the Asset Purchase Agreement is not attached? Should've been listed there...
Again, paragraph 52 expands the scope of the Star Control copyrights beyond SC3. The lawyers seem to be mixing it all up....
Also, Exhibit M does not refer to provide further games for free under the Star control mark. (paragraph 54) It refers only to UQM.
paragraph 55: the name is not the goodwill. If I hear a new publisher/developer is behind a sequel with the same name, I am cautious (after my desaster with StarControl 3, and the very disruptive ICOM online gameplay), since then my goodwill is with the developer/programmers...
I know, for marketing the name is more important, as it catches attention of the relevant target group faster.
paragraph 57: from what I've read, previous Stardock attempts to resurrect older series has crated the negative reports for SC:Origins, and not the announcement done by FF and PR3. I cannot remember a comment from them negative for Origins, besides that UQM is better than SC2 on Steam or GOG.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: February 23, 2018, 11:44:58 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1111
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Split off into a new thread, then?
I'm still celebrating the coming of two new StarControl games....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1111
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Idk.
I'm hoping for a new engine, but that'll take a long while.
Since I feel, that their project scope is intended to remain small, and just tell the story they're coming up with, doing something hardcoded like UQM, and not freely changeable like Origins, seems more likely.
I'm therefore expecting a kind of Project 3014 (?), shifting (or maybe even enlarging) the map of UQM, and go from there.
Would be much cheaper as a project, not according to modern gaming standards, but depends on who they're catering for: just the hardcore fans and supply a continuation of the story, or a real new game alluring new players too, which would require a new engine.
I can live with both.
A simple, out of modern touch, game with a continuation,
or a full blown game, which will take very long to develop, and will require a rather large team, and not just those two.
But hmestly, I think they're still writing the story, and shifting through their original notes, as far as they survived.
Project scope comes once they are contend with the story.
But as SC2/UQM showed, a lot of story can be told in a very variable way using conversation trees.
For feel, I would even prefer a game like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1111
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
I just hope they'll be able to create new ships and have them balanced near as well as the new ships in SC2 were compared to the SC1 ships.
(I am using the trademark name here, because the games were published as such first.
It won't be easy to refer correctly to the games otherwise, even if I want to avoid using the trademark now.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 9
|
|
|
|
|
