Author
|
Topic: My take on Stardock (Read 192151 times)
|
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
 Offline
Posts: 522
|
It's interesting that you bring up the Star Trek reboot, because I consider that to be a mistake; the new Star Trek movies are Star Trek in name only.
Except that they aren't in name only when they attached Leonard Nimoy and the classic series cast to them. The new Star Trek film franchise is in a different reality as explored when Spock and Nero's ships fell into an artificially created black hole. We now follow this alternate version of the Enterprise's "original" crew. Some things are the same, some aren't, that's what happens in the Kelvin-verse. Same with Discovery, even though I don't like it, it remains canon to the classic series but just adjacent in an alternate reality. Even much more so thanks to the Spore Drive. Just because you may not regard it as canon doesn't mean that's factually the way it is when it all connects to the original shows in many different ways in-story and thematically.
You might ask why it is such a big deal for me, as a person unaffiliated with Fred or Paul, that they should be able to do it without asking for your permission. Well, it's a matter of trust. While you do seem to treat the Star Control universe with more care than Accolade did with SC3 and StarCon, you are basically asking us to trust you to give F&P full creative freedom and not take that freedom away at any point in the future, even though it is fully in your power to do so. That takes a lot of trust. And while none of us here has any real power to influence your decisions on this matter, this is one of the reasons many of us will be rooting for F&P in this conflict.
I for one categorically do not trust anyone holding hypothetical trademarks to Spathi, etc. Even if Brad himself is willing to be liberal with other people's use of the trademarks, there's no guarantee that he will be in control of the trademarks in perpetuity. In the future, Stardock could be sold to another entity who is less willing to let people use them.
I can't speak for what Paul and Fred will do but any IP attorney can walk you through what's going to happen. Paul and Fred are welcome to try to oppose the trademarks if they want of course but in the end, Stardock will have those trademarks. I would imagine their legal counsel has already walked them through this.
This is, quite frankly, wrong. If you're correct that this is what's going to happen, then there's a bug in the law that needs to be patched up; but I strongly hope you're not correct.
And I'll add that your constant smug remarks implying you know how this will all end up (in your favour) are not welcome.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
Perhaps you can find the actual context it was used in. my anaolofy was regarding moral equivalence.
Also, on trademarks and registration, it’s not about being smug. It’s just not a very complex process. The Orz and such will be part of the new Star Control games just like they were part of previous Star Control games.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 03:36:32 am by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
I don’t think I could compete with your, wit. 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
Also, on trademarks and registration, it’s not about being smug. It’s just not a very complex process. The Orz and such will be part of the new Star Control games just like they were part of previous Star Control games.
Actually, 'smug' describes this pretty well. People, including myself, have cited specific, plausible reasons for why Stardock might have trouble securing these trademarks. But rather than address those reasons, you're falling back on nonspecific assertions that your predicted outcome is inevitable, and then saying that it's "just not a very complex process", implying that anyone who does not accept your assertion must be obtuse. That is not a valid way to argue a point. If it is so obvious, it should be simple to supply the requested proof.
Of course, we're not in court, and you're certainly not obligated to make a valid argument here, just as you're not obligated to be here at all. But when you use fake rhetoric like this, it disrespects the people you're talking with, and it gives the audience the impression that you can't actually prove your point, because it looks like you're trying to evade the call to back it up with evidence.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 04:16:07 am by Elestan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
What I mean is you can literally google on what grounds you can oppose a trademark and work it from there.
It just seems disengenuous how you can claim to know how a complex legal contract will work out but you think there’s some blockeron registering an alien name.
You know what was a hard trademark to get: Impulse. But we got it. That’s a very common word. Which makes it valuable but difficult to trademark. Impulse has been used so many times in so many ways. But we got it. Yehat, by contrast, very easy. Strongly associated with Star Control(R). Will be in new Star Control games. We couldn’t trademark it if we weren’t going to use it. You can’t squat on a trademark.
Short version: you are way overthinking it.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 04:35:37 am by Frogboy »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
What I mean is you can literally google on what grounds you can oppose a trademark and work it from there.
Okay, I just did, and found this page, which includes (among others) at least these reasons why such a trademark would plausibly be invalid:
(1) Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d): That defendant’s mark so resembles a mark registered in the Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
(7) That defendant is not (and was not, at the time of the filing of its application for registration) the rightful owner of the registered mark.
(11) That defendant’s mark has been abandoned due to nonuse with intent not to resume use, and nonuse for three consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment, [ Note 26.]; or due to a course of conduct that has caused the mark to lose significance as an indication of source.
It just seems disengenuous how you can claim to know how a complex legal contract will work out but you think there’s some blockeron registering an alien name.
I don't "know" how the contract will turn out, but my current opinion is that Atari's lawyers probably knew what they were talking about, and you haven't countered that opinion by providing any rationale to support your position on it. If you do, I'll re-evaluate.
Yehat, by contrast, very easy. Strongly associated with Star Control(R). Will be in new Star Control games. We couldn’t trademark it if we weren’t going to use it. You can’t squat on a trademark.
...except that in 2001, Paul introduced a new product called "The Ur-Quan Masters" that used the name "Yehat". That product is still actively distributed and used. Accolade had no product using that Mark in commerce in 2001, and for many years thereafter, and in any event, Accolade knew of "The Ur-Quan Masters" use of "Yehat", and did not object, thereby forfeiting the Mark. So it seems like "Yehat" is currently in use by another party, and is therefore not eligible for registration.
I also want to re-raise what I thought was a very good point by PRH:
...by asserting the existence of a "Star Control multiverse" where the Ur-Quan universe created by F&P is just one of many timelines, while Origins is an alternate version of the same universe (while F&P had no plans to make it that way), you are still kind of messing with F&P's canon.
If nobody has a trademark, and you just put a random race called 'Yehat' in your game, that's one thing. But if you put 'Yehat' in your game, and say that it's an alternate universe/alternate history version of the 'Yehat' from SC2, haven't you just conceded that your "Yehat" is a derivative of the 'Yehat' from SC2, and therefore subject to Paul's copyright?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
What I mean is you can literally google on what grounds you can oppose a trademark and work it from there. Okay, I just did, and found this page, which includes (among others) at least these reasons why such a trademark would plausibly be invalid: (1) Trademark Act § 2(d), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d): That defendant’s mark so resembles a mark registered in the Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods or services of the defendant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.
(7) That defendant is not (and was not, at the time of the filing of its application for registration) the rightful owner of the registered mark.
(11) That defendant’s mark has been abandoned due to nonuse with intent not to resume use, and nonuse for three consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment, [ Note 26.]; or due to a course of conduct that has caused the mark to lose significance as an indication of source. It just seems disengenuous how you can claim to know how a complex legal contract will work out but you think there’s some blockeron registering an alien name. I don't "know" how the contract will turn out, but my current opinion is that Atari's lawyers probably knew what they were talking about, and you haven't countered that opinion by providing any rationale to support your position on it. If you do, I'll re-evaluate. Yehat, by contrast, very easy. Strongly associated with Star Control(R). Will be in new Star Control games. We couldn’t trademark it if we weren’t going to use it. You can’t squat on a trademark. ...except that in 2001, Paul introduced a new product called "The Ur-Quan Masters" that used the name "Yehat". That product is still actively distributed and used. Accolade had no product using that Mark in commerce in 2001, and for many years thereafter, and in any event, Accolade knew of "The Ur-Quan Masters" use of "Yehat", and did not object, thereby forfeiting the Mark. So it seems like "Yehat" is currently in use by another party, and is therefore not eligible for registration. I also want to re-raise what I thought was a very good point by PRH: ...by asserting the existence of a "Star Control multiverse" where the Ur-Quan universe created by F&P is just one of many timelines, while Origins is an alternate version of the same universe (while F&P had no plans to make it that way), you are still kind of messing with F&P's canon. If nobody has a trademark, and you just put a random race called 'Yehat' in your game, that's one thing. But if you put 'Yehat' in your game, and say that it's an alternate universe/alternate history version of the 'Yehat' from SC2, haven't you just conceded that your "Yehat" is a derivative of the 'Yehat' from SC2, and therefore subject to Paul's copyright?
You are mixing copyrights and trademarks. You can't copyright a word. Using a word doesn't convey automatic trademark. Only copyrights exist automatically. Using a word or phrase doesn't turn it into a common-law trademark either.
You can't simply use a word in something you release and claim to own it. You are thinking of copyright. You also should read the footnotes in your link.
I really can't make this any clearer than it already is. My communication skills are obviously not up to the challenge. Certainly, Paul and Fred can oppose the trademarks. But in the meantime, they'll be in the new Star Control games.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 231
|
They are welcome to try. But I doubt it, you should really google these legal terms you use. This is why the lawyer guy (and myself) get frustrated with you sometimes.
To get a preliminary injunction you would need to show irreparable harm and convince the court you are likely to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
They are welcome to try. But I doubt it, you should really google these legal terms you use. This is why the lawyer guy (and myself) get frustrated with you sometimes.
To get a preliminary injunction you would need to show irreparable harm and convince the court you are likely to succeed.
I'm not sure what basis you have to assume I don't know about preliminary injunctions; I'm actually quite familiar with how they work. The judge would also have to balance the possible harm to Stardock, and P&F would have to post a correspondingly sized bond.
I think (but still am not-a-lawyer) that the possibility of releasing Paul's IP in an unlicensed work would qualify as irreparable harm; it's not something you can reverse just by writing a check. And since you're on record a little while ago as saying that the game wasn't going to use the SC2 races, and you're still not sure about it, the harm to Stardock from not being able to use them doesn't seem all that great. The question is whether P&F could show a likelihood of prevailing. Based on what's currently known, I think they are likely to prevail on the 1988 agreement, but I don't know where the lines are on what counts as too similar, so I'm not sure exactly how they'd define what would be enjoined.
So, I think they could plausibly get an injunction against you using Paul's IP - I just can't guess how the court would rule on whether what you're planning would count as using it or not.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 07:07:14 am by Elestan »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
