Author
|
Topic: Stardock Litigation Discussion (Read 166971 times)
|
Krulle
Enlightened
 Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
And in B5 you have a "flow", pushing ships off-course.... (and making rescue operations difficult to impossible - whereas in SC2 rescue operations are "simple" - ask the Mael-Num)
Anyway, they (B5) are not being accused of having stolen copyright from SC2.
Since Babylon 5 does not pretend to continue or contain any settings, races, events from SC2, the creators of SC2 had no fear that they might become barred from continueing their own story, a situation which is different with Origins, especially because the CEO announced he will have and use it all...
So, even legally there is a completely different story to tell.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 12:18:06 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1387
|
I don't think that Stardock acts the way it does out of ignorance. It has managed to maintain a very peaceful relationship with F&P for four years after Stardock's acquisition of the SC trademark and the SC3 copyright, and for all that time Brad Wardell demonstrated that he knew exactly what each side owned. He still seems to have made a very risky gamble, though – based on what I have seen in early SCO trailers, it seems that he had already incorporated elements from SC2 into SCO that were likely protected by copyright at an early stage of development (though founders should know more on this topic than I do), and he hoped F&P would license their copyright to Stardock so that he could use that copyrighted material legitimately.
That is ignorance though. Ignorance to whether or not he could come to an agreement with the other IP holders before:
1) Buying himself partway into the IP for hundreds of thousands of USD.
2) Doubling down by pouring millions more USD in the form of development of unlicensed infringing material.
3) Tripling down by frivolously suing those he had infringed against (as some kind of preemptive attack?)
That is a lot of ignorance, actually.
That gamble didn't pay off.
And so naturally he expects P&F should cover the costs of his gambling addiction.
And I guess this is why so many people are siding with Stardock – after all, they have actually made a new Star Control game, while F&P have shown nothing. And nobody can be sure that GotP is going to be better than SCO until GotP actually gets made.
This is almost exactly one of the statements Brad Wardell likes to chant and it is the impression that gets sown into you, the more time you spend on Stardock's forums. But so too was Brad's legal theory crafting, which in the court of law is increasingly getting exposed as the BS it seemed to be outside of the Stardock echo chamber.
And if Brad Wardell knows GotP is vaporware (as he likes to claim) why did he sue them for a competing product he believes never will exist? Is it not more likely to assume that, after only more than a year since GotP's announcement, its development has been successfully thwarted by Brad's lawsuit against it and the tremendous resource drain it takes to resist this in court?
It is very convenient for him to make a claim against them that he is simultaneously preventing them from disproving.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
PRH
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 209
|
This is almost exactly one of the statements Brad Wardell likes to chant and it is the impression that gets sown into you, the more time you spend on Stardock's forums. But so too was Brad's legal theory crafting, which in the court of law is increasingly getting exposed as the BS it seemed to be outside of the Stardock echo chamber.
And if Brad Wardell knows GotP is vaporware (as he likes to claim) why did he sue them for a competing product he believes never will exist? Is it not more likely to assume that, after only more than a year since GotP's announcement, its development has been successfully thwarted by Brad's lawsuit against it and the tremendous resource drain it takes to resist this in court?
It is very convenient for him to make a claim against them that he is simultaneously preventing them from disproving.
To his credit, I don't recall Brad Wardell ever (explicitly) claiming that GotP is vaporware (though the only Stardock source I check regularly is the official SCO website - I don't follow Brad on Twitter or anywhere else). And I agree that Stardock's legal actions only make sense if GotP isn't vaporware (okay, maybe some trademark infringement claims make sense either way - or don't, if they are about the SC1/SC2 alien names).
The vaporware claim is mostly made by the more rabid Stardock fans. And it's very depressing to see how these people, who seem to be SC2/UQM fans as much as we are here, hate F&P with such a passion that I don't think anyone here hates Stardock as much. Brad himself is more restrained in his comments against F&P than these people are (though I guess it's partly because the more aggressive comments get people banned here).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 27, 2019, 06:19:11 pm by PRH »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Narsham
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 20
|
That said, the Injunction Junction post has made it quite clear that a win-win solution is no longer possible. There seems to be no scenario where both SCO and GotP would remain on the market, since both sides have made it quite clear that they aren't interested in allowing the competing game to be sold, as I'm not sure if all copyright issues that SCO currently has can be remedied with a patch (though of course we can still hope for the best). And I guess this is why so many people are siding with Stardock – after all, they have actually made a new Star Control game, while F&P have shown nothing. And nobody can be sure that GotP is going to be better than SCO until GotP actually gets made.
Of course, none of this means that the court is any more likely to decide the case in Stardock's favor. And if it really finds SCO infringing, then SCO lives on borrowed time.
This is actually an interesting question. If SCO is found to not be sufficiently infringing, does that allow P&F to have their GotP with characters they own and with SC2-style graphics without Stardock having a counter-claim? A court, after all, would have found that game Y does not infringe on game X despite having lots of elements in common. For Stardock to claim that game Z, based on game X, infringes upon game Y seems like it would run afoul of their own past defense. So long as GotP cannot be confused with SCO or any future SC games, they might legally co-exist.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WibbleNZ
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 53
|
While all the trademark applications are almost certainly going to end up suspended until the main lawsuit is over, Stardock have finally filed an exhibit showing their "use" of the Frungy "Mark" in their opposition.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028&pty=OPP&eno=1 (Exhibit A)
Which is a not an example of use in commerce, shows no connection to Star Control or Stardock unless you already know what the product is, and is probably copyright infringement.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
And just shows that it has been created by the game designers.
This is getting ridiculous (the trademarks application battle).
I remember a very old game someone made.
You used a ZFP-Stinger to push a ball around and try to push it into the opponent's goal.
He named it Frungy.
I think that was closest to what I ever saw of Frungy being used in commerce.
The game never really caught on.
It's so long ago, my google-Fu fails me....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
WibbleNZ
Frungy champion
Offline
Posts: 53
|
The video the exhibit was cropped from wasn't too hard to find - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq-HuIYIrds . Go back to part 1 of the let's play series and it's clearly The Ur-Quan Masters and not Star Control II™ at all...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Pretty sure they'll find a SCII game somewhere they caan snapshot from and pretend...
It is similar enough....
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Thank you.
Didn't want to go to Wayback machine.
So, some has had a commercial use for "Frungy", but that seems to be more than 15 years ago, so the trademark may have lapsed anyway....
Also, the link to the file server "fileplanet" results in no such file, and fileplanet's search also does not help.
But what did I expect anyway?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 30, 2019, 12:57:11 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Good find, and it sounds like Mr. Wardell, but has been posted by a "deleted user".
On another note, Origins is back up on GoG too, and the DMCA counternotifications have been published, and GoG filed a request to dismiss F&P's "ninth action" due to being not sufficiently reasoned nor proven.
The DMCA counternotifications show, that Stardock indemnifies GoG and Valve from any legal costs and damages should they lose the case.
(Hence there is no evident support of Stardock by Valve and GoG regarding the subject of the copyright allegations, as hinted by the PR department of Stardock.)
Edit: Gog wants to dismiss the alleged fraud action, and will reply to the other actions against GoG at a later time...
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 08:05:06 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Ariloulawleelay
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 44
|
While all the trademark applications are almost certainly going to end up suspended until the main lawsuit is over, Stardock have finally filed an exhibit showing their "use" of the Frungy "Mark" in their opposition. http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028&pty=OPP&eno=1 (Exhibit A) Which is a not an example of use in commerce, shows no connection to Star Control or Stardock unless you already know what the product is, and is probably copyright infringement.
The video the exhibit was cropped from wasn't too hard to find - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq-HuIYIrds . Go back to part 1 of the let's play series and it's clearly The Ur-Quan Masters and not Star Control II™ at all...
To trade away one's integrity in an act of pure laziness? To oppose a trademark application out of spite? When the application may well be suspended anyway? To misrepresent a seven year old exhibit that, facially, does not demonstrate a use in commerce?
If true, this allegation would be very ... disappointing.
Coupled with what seems to me a short-sighted decision to represent Valve and (briefly) GOG, this may seriously erode the presumption of competence I previously afforded NP.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Yeah, with that reasoning of Stardock's lawyers, you could not trademark ANY word previously used in a film, book, game, ....
E.g. Skynet (terminator). In Europe/Netherlands it is a registered trademark for an airline (1), telecom services (especially communication over computer networks - like Skynet in the film) (2), parcel service/courier services (3). Many more have been denied.
Since Terminator is older than any of those registrations, ...
Yeah, it's worth a try for them, and some young attorney can thus bill some premium hours to gain experience....
Edit, still reading GoG's reply.
Footnote page 5 is interesting, Stardock apparently is trying to prolong the procedure, since they asked for being allowed to file another amended complaint, and a modification of the scheduling (which means they want more time).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 10:06:32 pm by Krulle »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Elestan
*Smell* controller
Offline
Posts: 431
|
While all the trademark applications are almost certainly going to end up suspended until the main lawsuit is over, Stardock have finally filed an exhibit (Exhibit A) showing their "use" of the Frungy "Mark" in their opposition. Which is a not an example of use in commerce, shows no connection to Star Control or Stardock unless you already know what the product is, and is probably copyright infringement.
The video the exhibit was cropped from wasn't too hard to find - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq-HuIYIrds . Go back to part 1 of the let's play series and it's clearly The Ur-Quan Masters and not Star Control II™ at all...
To trade away one's integrity in an act of pure laziness? To oppose a trademark application out of spite?
Just to expand on that linked message:
And they still can either via a royalty free, no charge license if they to develop it independently from us. Or they can do it with us using the Star Control: Origins engine.
They could create a new studio. Call it Frungy Games or something.
I'll note that we've seen Stardock's idea of a "royalty free, no charge license", and it was essentially a deceptive trap. I'll also note that at the time Brad wrote that, he was certainly already aware of P&F's application for the "Frungy Games" trademark, which had been filed several months prior.
When the application may well be suspended anyway? To misrepresent a seven year old exhibit that, facially, does not demonstrate a use in commerce? If true, this allegation would be very ... disappointing.
The one thing I wonder about that video is that while it is certainly not a valid example of the use of "Frungy" in commerce, it is labeled as a playthrough of Star Control 2, which might play into claims of consumer confusion in some way?
Coupled with what seems to me a short-sighted decision to represent Valve and (briefly) GOG, this may seriously erode the presumption of competence I previously afforded NP.
Just wondering: Why do you feel it was short-sighted? Since Stardock is indemnifying them, their interests are aligned to at least some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
