Author
|
Topic: My take on Stardock (Read 141326 times)
|
|
|
PRH
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 207
|
Right. So Brad seems to say that since Stardock owns the Star Control trademark, it also automatically owns all names for all the unique characters that have ever appeared in products that were released under that trademark, even if the copyright to the lore of SC1 and SC2 is owned by Fred and Paul. Is that true? Because if it is, then it's yet another proof of how F&P did not realize the full value of the SC trademark and did not buy it from Stardock when they had the chance. And it also means that all hope of F&P being able to use their characters' names independently of Stardock is gone forever - there is literally no way for them to use those names except by entering into a license agreement with Stardock. I wonder what the terms of that license agreement would be, just out of curiosity. And of course, F&P still need to provide the exact evidence that shows what part of the SC IP they own.
Of course, if the above is not true, then F&P need to oppose Stardock's registration of the trademarks for the classic SC races as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 18, 2018, 08:47:51 pm by PRH »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
Standard disclaimer: I Am Not A Lawyer
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?
They can be separated from each other, but that's not the same as saying that they can be sold separately. The "assignment in gross" test appears to only be triggered when a trademark is assigned, so a company can create its own mix of trademarks and other IP, and then sell off or lose the license to some of the copyrights or patents. It's just that when they try to sell the trademark - and the assignee then tries to enforce it - that the person it's being enforced on can try to invoke this rule to get the trademark invalidated.
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.
So Atari can assert that, but I don't think it's their decision to make. Atari's creditors no doubt wanted to see all these trademarks sold for as much as possible, but it seems like this is a question that would only be decided in court; I don't think the bankruptcy judge does a detailed analysis of the goodwill assets at the time of the sale. If the trademark assignment did happen to be invalid, I think Stardock would just be out of luck; that's the risk you take when you buy something at a bankruptcy auction.
I'm not sure I agree; that paper is an advocacy piece arguing in favor of doing away with the goodwill test, but it seems in large part to be lamenting the fact that while other countries have greatly weakened this requirement, the United States has not done so - or at least not to the same extent as elsewhere. I didn't notice it cite any specific U.S. case law weakening the goodwill rule, though it might have; it was over 70 pages long, and I only skimmed it.
Pepsico v. Grapette seems to be the origin of this case law, and it actually sounds kind of familiar: Grapette wanted to sell soft drinks, and wanted a trademark. So it went to a bankruptcy auction, and bought a trademark that had been used to sell a cola-flavored beverage. But the court ruled the sale invalid, because Grapette hadn't acquired the formula or machinery needed to make the original cola beverage, and was instead trying to use it to sell a pepper-flavored beverage.
So, based just on this precedent, the question would appear to be: Is a Star Control game made without using Paul's IP more or less different from the pre-existing Star Control games, than a pepper soft drink is from a cola soft drink?
Of course, that's an 8th Circuit precedent from 1969, so they could do things differently in the 9th Circuit, and there could be newer case law that's changed things since then. If anyone finds some, please let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Stardock acquired both the trademark and the copyright to Star Control 3 in which Accolade is listed as the sole author. That is all of the IP that existed as far as the federal court is concerned.
What IP Paul and Fred actually have is unknown.
The examples you provided above are not applicable here anyway as the rationale is to prevent someone from acquiring a trademark to use for something unrelated. But consider the implications of your argument, it would make the case that Stardock absolutely must include all the aliens. You said earlier you didn’t want this but now argue, in effect, not having them would weaken our claim.
The new Star Control game certainly fits into the various uses that the Star Control games of the past. A ScI Fi video game developed by the people who own both the trademark and copyright.
It’s pretty disappointing to see people who claim to be fans grasping at straws in the hopes of stopping a new Star Control game. You guys keep wrongly assuming Paul and Fred have a whole bunch of valuable IP. I used to think that too.
But the bottom line is that 100% of the registered Star Control IP was transferred to Stardock. Copyright and trademark. Paul, Fred, Riku, Dan, Erol, etc. may have various common law rights but it’s unknown and wouldn’t prevent a new Star a Control game.
You should watch the new Lost in Space series on Netflix through the eyes of this discussion.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 02:33:41 pm by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lakstoties
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 66
|
I thought even you agreed that F&P own the copyright to the story and characters of SC1 and SC2. Are you taking that back now?
His lawyers are in their answer to the counter-claim (April 16, 2018).
Original Counter Claim: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/
Answer to Counter Claim: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/38/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/
Paragraph 44 Counter-claim: "Over the years since their various releases, Reiche, Ford, and Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games themselves have acquired a valuable fame, reputation and goodwill among the purchasing public."
Answer to Paragraph 44: "Stardock denies Reiche’s and Ford’s suggested possession and ownership of Star Control, Star Control II, including The Ur-Quan Masters, and Reiche’s Preexisting Characters used in Star Control 3. Stardock admits that the Classic Star Control Games have become popular over the last couple of decades in the video game community and have acquired a reputation and goodwill among the purchasing public. Stardock lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of any and all other allegations asserted in Paragraph 44 of the Counterclaim, and on that basis denies such allegations."
Paragraph 102 Counter-Claim: "Reiche and Ford are the owners of all copyrights to Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games, and particularly the Reiche and Ford Registered Copyrights."
Answer to Paragraph 102: "Stardock denies the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Counterclaim."
Reading it over, Stardock does not concede to grant even Star Control 1 or 2 copyrights to Fred and Paul. The most humoring part to me is the Seventh ("On information and belief, Defendants’ copyright claims are barred because they are not the rightful owner of the alleged copyright."), Fifteenth ("Defendants’ copyright claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use."), and Sixteenth Affirmative ("Defendants’ trademark claims are barred by the doctrine of fair use.") Denfenses.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Stardock acquired both the trademark and the copyright to Star Control 3 in which Accolade is listed as the sole author. That is all of the IP that existed as far as the federal court is concerned.
What IP Paul and Fred actually have is unknown.
The examples you provided above are not applicable here anyway as the rationale is to prevent someone from acquiring a trademark to use for something unrelated. But consider the implications of your argument, it would make the case that Stardock absolutely must include all the aliens. You said earlier you didn’t want this but now argue, in effect, not having them would weaken our claim.
The new Star Control game certainly fits into the various uses that the Star Control games of the past. A ScI Fi video game developed by the people who own both the trademark and copyright.
It’s pretty disappointing to see people who claim to be fans grasping at straws in the hopes of stopping a new Star Control game. You guys keep wrongly assuming Paul and Fred have a whole bunch of valuable IP. I used to think that too.
But the bottom line is that 100% of the registered Star Control IP was transferred to Stardock. Copyright and trademark. Paul, Fred, Riku, Dan, Erol, etc. may have various common law rights but it’s unknown and wouldn’t prevent a new Star a Control game.
You should watch the new Lost in Space series on Netflix through the eyes of this discussion.
The 1988 agreement clearly states that all work and DERIVATIVE work reverts in the case of bankruptcy or lack of sales. You yourself have admitted that the 1988 contract lapsed and it pretty clearly states what happens when it does. The agreement makes it pretty clear you bought a lemon.
First, no, I have not "admitted" the 1988 agreement has expired. I have said that we have operated as if it has because we haven't relied on it for Star Control: Origins.
Perhaps you should read the 1988 agreement more closely on what reverts to them and what doesn't. You have to own something in the first place for something to revert to you by definition.
In addition, one needs to specify what their work is. As time has gone on and more investigation has taken place, it's not real clear there is any "work" that they created that would be usable in a new Star Control game.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 05:13:23 pm by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
huhlig
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 24
|
Stardock acquired both the trademark and the copyright to Star Control 3 in which Accolade is listed as the sole author. That is all of the IP that existed as far as the federal court is concerned.
What IP Paul and Fred actually have is unknown.
The examples you provided above are not applicable here anyway as the rationale is to prevent someone from acquiring a trademark to use for something unrelated. But consider the implications of your argument, it would make the case that Stardock absolutely must include all the aliens. You said earlier you didn’t want this but now argue, in effect, not having them would weaken our claim.
The new Star Control game certainly fits into the various uses that the Star Control games of the past. A ScI Fi video game developed by the people who own both the trademark and copyright.
It’s pretty disappointing to see people who claim to be fans grasping at straws in the hopes of stopping a new Star Control game. You guys keep wrongly assuming Paul and Fred have a whole bunch of valuable IP. I used to think that too.
But the bottom line is that 100% of the registered Star Control IP was transferred to Stardock. Copyright and trademark. Paul, Fred, Riku, Dan, Erol, etc. may have various common law rights but it’s unknown and wouldn’t prevent a new Star a Control game.
You should watch the new Lost in Space series on Netflix through the eyes of this discussion.
The 1988 agreement clearly states that all work and DERIVATIVE work reverts in the case of bankruptcy or lack of sales. You yourself have admitted that the 1988 contract lapsed and it pretty clearly states what happens when it does. The agreement makes it pretty clear you bought a lemon. First, no, I have not "admitted" the 1988 agreement has expired. I have said that we have operated as if it has because we haven't relied on it for Star Control: Origins. Perhaps you should read the 1988 agreement more closely on what reverts to them and what doesn't. You have to own something in the first place for something to revert to you by definition. In addition, one needs to specify what their work is. As time has gone on and more investigation has taken place, it's not real clear there is any "work" that they created that would be usable in a new Star Control game.
Well the Relevant sections are copied here here and here. Per the agreement the 'work' includes all of Star Control 1 and 'As yet Unspecified' (Star Control 2) according to the contract. I think it's pretty clear.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 19, 2018, 05:55:47 pm by huhlig »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
