Sequels strife

Ahh, vague omens and mysterious portents. Tangled webs of fate intertwined with the branches of destiny, blown by the capricious winds of happenstance. News, news....uh, actually there is some news!

Moderator: ZFP Peacekeepers

User avatar
Alvarin
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Alvarin » Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:04 pm

So, skimmed the document. On 20 pages it is repeated to Stardock: You were warned, but decided to proceed. Your pro arguments are invalid.
Summary: motion denied.
To be angry is to punish yourself for the errors of others.

krulle
Ilwrath torturer
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by krulle » Sat Dec 29, 2018 11:31 pm

Uh, dang. Forgot to add the decision.
Yes, indeed, Stardock's request got denied.

Thus Ford/Reiche could send a DMCA takedown notice to GoG and Valve.

Apparently case law provides a test for such a preliminary injunction, which requires four "prongs" to be proven and met ("Winter"; page 9, lines 4-7). The judge decided on two, and both failed ("irreparable harm", and "balance of equities"). The judge then simply closed the case and did not decide the last two "prongs" (among which the "likely to win on merits"), as their outcomes would not change the general decision (page 20, lines 19-22).
So, no indication on the merits yet.

EnderSE15
ZEXy Beast
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2018 5:15 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by EnderSE15 » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:09 pm

Shiver wrote:
Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:22 pm
Brad instructed his attorneys to be as gentle as possible, huh? Is that what they're doing now?
Mr Wardell would appear to have blown his credibility (such as it was).

User avatar
Now and Forever
ZEXy Beast
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Now and Forever » Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:54 am

krulle wrote:
Sat Dec 29, 2018 6:35 pm

An interesting read, but in the bigger picture it does not mean anything.
Reading the factual background it does show the court recognizes, understands, and supports the chronology as we do. That seems pretty significant. Page 3 line 17:
As far as Defendants recall, Ford “wrote all of the code for both Star Control I and II.” Id. ¶ 13. Star Control I was printed with “© 1990 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford,” and Star Control II was printed with “© 1992 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford.” Id. ¶ 16. Later, in December 2017 and April 2018, Reiche and Ford obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA 2-071-496 and No. PA-2-107-340, respectively, for the computer program code and audiovisual content of Star Control II.
Stardock has intentionally made false claims to the contrary of this. Very bad move. Not only did they give this claim to the court they blasted it publicly. So, you know, Stardock told us George Lucas didn't reallllly make Star Wars guys.

From here the court goes on to recognize that the Star Control mark was untenable for their copyrighted work so P & F moved on and relabeled the project to what they do, clearly, own. Easy logical step to see Stardock has made an attempt to coopt their work as well as the good will of the persistent fan base. That Stardock took the time to document this themselves for the court was baffling. That the court has basically told them, well, I mean literally told them that they are not taking their nuts chestnuts out of the fire on this is genuinely hilarious.

p20 line 14
It now claims that its investment in Origins and reputation are on the line. Given that Plaintiff largely created the foregoing predicament, the Court is disinclined to extricate Plaintiff from a peril of its own making. See GEO Grp., Inc. v. United States, 100 Fed. Cl. 223, 229 (2011) (“[T]he court is ill-inclined, at this late hour, to pull [the plaintiff’s] chestnuts out of a fire sparked by its own ill-fated tactical decision.”).
Investments wise, it's a bad game. DLC salvagable? Sure. Reputation wise ... I mean, c'mon ... you don't think the people over at Valve played SC II when they were kids? Or haven't revisited that era through UQM at least once? Like we don't see echoes of their work in Mass Effect and other AAA mongo budget games using precursors or other themes clearly hat tipping Star Control II? That's done and if the court has the internet, which they do, they can easily uncover that. So can every other game shop and industry wonk that has a place in their heart for the universe that Paul and Fred made for us.

Belated Merry Christmas guys. You deserved this win.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhzxQCTCI3E
Attention Interloper

User avatar
Dyandod
Yehat Revolutionist
Posts: 641
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:16 am
Location: Illinois

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Dyandod » Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:52 am

Star Control: Origins removed from Steam after DMCA takedown notice

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pcgame ... wn-notice/

A good start to the new year, hopefully leading to future victories down the road!
KYAAAAAIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE!

User avatar
Quasispatial
Yehat Revolutionist
Posts: 656
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:10 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Quasispatial » Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:16 am

If Stardock hadn't gotten greedy, none of this would have happened. Serves them right.
"Sentient life. We are the Ur-Quan. Independence is intolerable. Blah, blah, blah." - the Spathi High Council, Star Control II.

User avatar
Alvarin
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2061
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Alvarin » Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:15 pm

Quasispatial wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:16 am
If Stardock hadn't gotten greedy, none of this would have happened. Serves them right.
I prefer to think of it that initially all was in good faith and an honest misunderstanding, only when shareholders got involved, Stardock begun digging their heels in and it got ... messy...
To be angry is to punish yourself for the errors of others.

krulle
Ilwrath torturer
Posts: 422
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by krulle » Wed Jan 02, 2019 4:40 pm

GoG apparently took the game down too.
Humblebundle still sells the game and gives out steam keys which (according to twitter reports) can be redeemed, thus steam is still offering new copies of the game, just not sold directly by them.

Elestan
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 39
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:28 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Elestan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 3:52 am

Alvarin wrote:
Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:15 pm
I prefer to think of it that initially all was in good faith and an honest misunderstanding, only when shareholders got involved, Stardock begun digging their heels in and it got ... messy...
That would be nice. However, as near as I can tell, Stardock has only two shareholders: Brad and his wife. While they might have a silent partner or two, they appear to hold all of the corporate officer seats. He appears to be his own boss, and has F-U money, so he does as he pleases.

That wouldn't bother me in itself, but despite having all the power, he's also shown a tendency to blame others for the consequences of his actions; witness how he is currently attempting to blame P&F's DMCA for his laying off his staff. I believe that when you've got the power, you also need to step up and shoulder the responsibility.

Matthias
ZEXy Beast
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:35 am

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Matthias » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:24 am

So, for those who are utterly clueless about legal proceedings and such especially as they pertain to copyright laws, what impact will all this have on the overall case? Was this just a nominal first victory that hurt Stardock in the pocketbook, or does this bode well for the overall lawsuit?

Edit: Looked over the document. On pages 5, 6, and 7, the court seems to acknowledge that Brad contacted P&F, acknowledging their ownership of the IP and asking to use it. Does/will that count for anything?

Post Reply