Page 30 of 32

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Fri May 31, 2019 11:17 pm
by Matthias
That’s basically the agreement P&F offered last year. I’d hope Stardock would take a bigger hit now that they’ve seen they’re losing this case.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:08 am
by Elestan
Matthias wrote:
Fri May 31, 2019 11:17 pm
That’s basically the agreement P&F offered last year. I’d hope Stardock would take a bigger hit now that they’ve seen they’re losing this case.
We don't know anything with certainty about who is winning or losing; the Court's rulings so far have all been procedural, and never reached the merits of the main complaints.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:51 am
by Elestan
A document filed at the Trademark Appeals Board today indicates that the parties have reached a settlement. Terms are not yet known, other than that P&F are no longer opposing the "Star Control" mark.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:59 am
by Alvarin
Elestan wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 12:51 am
A document filed at the Trademark Appeals Board today indicates that the parties have reached a settlement. Terms are not yet known, other than that P&F are no longer opposing the "Star Control" mark.
Is "Frungy Games inc." directly Paul and Fred?
I think this document is in parallel legal plane to the sequels and copyrights thing.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Sat Jun 08, 2019 2:52 pm
by Elestan
Alvarin wrote:
Sat Jun 08, 2019 6:59 am
Is "Frungy Games inc." directly Paul and Fred?
I think this document is in parallel legal plane to the sequels and copyrights thing.
It was a company started by Paul and Fred during the suit, with the intention of giving it their IP and trying to substitute it into the suit in their place. That gambit appears to have failed, and the company was allowed to dissolve.

But the docket confirms that the case has been dismissed with prejudice (which means it's final and cannot be re-opened).

So yes, it is over; we just don't know the terms on which it ended yet.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:37 pm
by Matthias
Nice.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/ ... and-honey/

I do wonder about this part though:
All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted. (Which is great because it means I don't have to re-summarize the mountain of IP arguments that both sides were making!)
Does that mean Brad will be dropping the trademark applications? Will he get to start using the alien race names and such in his games?

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:43 pm
by Matthias
Ah never mind. Found this on P&F’s website:
Stardock dropped all its alien name and character trademarks and all parties have dropped their oppositions to each other’s trademarks.

Both sides recognize each other’s copyrights and will not challenge them in the future.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:00 am
by Borgie
This strikes me a a surprisingly acceptable compromise. Based on all of the back-and-forth, both sides seem to have gotten a lot of what they were looking for.
I must say that I'm happy to see this is resolved (and much much sooner than I had anticipated).

I also love reading the stuff that Paul writes. Bees.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 12:08 am
by Matthias
It’s pretty much a slightly modified version of P&F’s original offer. Most important thing, we are getting a proper SC2 sequel. I cannot wait to find out what the Orz did to the Androsynth.

Re: Sequels strife

Posted: Wed Jun 12, 2019 2:51 am
by Matthias
This one part though strikes me as being vague enough to the point of potential problems:
We were able to come to a very specific understanding on the alien characters and races — how they look and act. Stardock is dropping all trademark registration of the alien names and won't use the described aliens without permission from Paul & Fred.
What I get out of that is that Stardock may continue to use some of P&F’s alien races as long as they’re different enough from what was described. This seems like it opens the door to possible future conflicts about what is “different enough.” I dunno?