The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 25, 2019, 01:18:11 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul Reiche and Fred Ford want to continue the story they started when they created Star Control II ó The Ur-Quan Masters. ęHappy days and jubilation!Ľ ęBut wait!Ľ ęThere is something wrong here... something which makes my sheath retract and my talons ooze.Ľ ęPlease, Captain, we need your help!Ľ

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  My take on Stardock
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 68 Print
Author Topic: My take on Stardock  (Read 52966 times)
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #495 on: April 14, 2018, 03:19:16 am »

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.
It's not a question of canon, it's a question of spirit. I don't know about Discovery, but the two reboot movies I saw, while pretty decent as standalone movies, do not live up to the spirit of Star Trek.

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
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #496 on: April 14, 2018, 03:22:23 am »

If you canít be bothered to look up this stuff, why should I spend time walking you through it?

I have looked it up, and most of what I found indicated that failing to use or enforce such trademarks for so long would render them unenforceable.  I'm actually quite curious to find sources indicating to the contrary.
Logged
CelticMinstrel
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #497 on: April 14, 2018, 03:26:05 am »

Rather, I strongly object when someone tries to play moral equivalence games with phrases like "Well, it takes two to have a dispute" which is akin to implying that the mugger and the muggee are equally at fault.  The analogy being, moral equivalence is a bad argument.
Oh right, I wanted to comment on this too. It absolutely takes two to have a dispute. This is completely different from a claim that the mugger and muggee are equally at fault; there is nothing remotely similar about the two scenarios. Your use of this fake analogy does you no favours either.
Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #498 on: April 14, 2018, 03:29:15 am »

Perhaps you can find the actual context it was used in. my anaolofy was regarding moral equivalence.

Also, on trademarks and registration, itís not about being smug. Itís 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
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3814


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #499 on: April 14, 2018, 03:35:41 am »

Quote
Not that there isn't plenty of information on trademark, but rather that there is something directly applicable to the question of what happens to the common law trademarks in a product that ceases to be sold, is re-released by its copyright owner after the applicable IP license expired, uses those trademarks for a decade uncontested by any sales of the original product, and then has the entity that bought the primary (registered) trademark on the product attempt to enforce the common law trademarks as well.

Quote
If you canít be bothered to look up this stuff, why should I spend time walking you through it?

You're such a hoot, Frogboy. Are you sure your true calling isn't comedy? Or perhaps Press Secretary?

EDITED to restore context. Sheesh you all type fast.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2018, 01:13:00 pm by Death 999 » Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #500 on: April 14, 2018, 03:37:53 am »

I donít think I could compete with your, wit. Wink
Logged
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #501 on: April 14, 2018, 04:14:18 am »

Also, on trademarks and registration, itís not about being smug. Itís 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 Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #502 on: April 14, 2018, 04:30:08 am »

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 thereís some blockeron registering an alien name.

You know what was a hard trademark to get: Impulse. But we got it.  Thatís 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 couldnít trademark it if we werenít going to use it. You canít 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 Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #503 on: April 14, 2018, 05:20:48 am »

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:

Quote from: USPTO
(1) Trademark Act ß 2(d), 15 U.S.C. ß 1052(d): That defendantís 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 defendantís 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.

Quote
It just seems disengenuous how you can claim to know how a complex legal contract will work out but you think thereís 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.

Quote
Yehat, by contrast, very easy. Strongly associated with Star Control(R). Will be in new Star Control games.  We couldnít trademark it if we werenít going to use it. You canít 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 Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #504 on: April 14, 2018, 06:05:06 am »

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:

Quote from: USPTO
(1) Trademark Act ß 2(d), 15 U.S.C. ß 1052(d): That defendantís 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 defendantís 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.

Quote
It just seems disengenuous how you can claim to know how a complex legal contract will work out but you think thereís 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.

Quote
Yehat, by contrast, very easy. Strongly associated with Star Control(R). Will be in new Star Control games.  We couldnít trademark it if we werenít going to use it. You canít 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
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #505 on: April 14, 2018, 06:18:33 am »

Certainly, Paul and Fred can oppose the trademarks.   But in the meantime, they'll be in the new Star Control games.

Just checking; by 'the new Star Control games', do you mean SC:O, or what comes after?  The last I recall, you said that they wouldn't be in SC:O.
Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #506 on: April 14, 2018, 06:30:03 am »

Certainly, Paul and Fred can oppose the trademarks.   But in the meantime, they'll be in the new Star Control games.

Just checking; by 'the new Star Control games', do you mean SC:O, or what comes after?  The last I recall, you said that they wouldn't be in SC:O.

They will be referenced and the Arilou may be in it depending on schedule and story requirements.
Logged
Elestan
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #507 on: April 14, 2018, 06:34:42 am »

The last I recall, you said that they wouldn't be in SC:O.
They will be referenced and the Arilou may be in it depending on schedule and story requirements.

Hmm, interesting.  I wonder if this means that we'll see a motion for a preliminary injunction from P&F.
Logged
Frogboy
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 231



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #508 on: April 14, 2018, 06:40:01 am »

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 Offline

Posts: 406



View Profile
Re: My take on Stardock
« Reply #509 on: April 14, 2018, 06:56:37 am »

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
Pages: 1 ... 32 33 [34] 35 36 ... 68 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


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!