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

krulle
Ilwrath torturer
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by krulle » Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:49 am

Sure it will (stardock lost the narrative that F&P are not the creators and that the copyright is/was with Accolade and thus reverted to Stardock, as well that Wardell has no capacity to decide that there is no infringement in Origins) but if the main case jury decides that there is indeed no infringing stuff in Origins, it will all count for nothing, and F&P will still loose the full case.

Elestan
Silly Supox
Posts: 60
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:28 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Elestan » Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:36 pm

Matthias wrote:
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?
It's a modest early victory as we start to move into the legal mid-game. It reduces Stardock's income, and thus puts somewhat more financial pressure on them, but they got a full quarter of sales out of SC:O, which should have taken some of the pressure off. It would have been a bigger deal if they had successfully blocked the initial release of SC:O in September.
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?
It does mean that the judge isn't currently buying some of Stardock's arguments, but this battle was won in the context of a preliminary injunction (PI) motion, where the battlefield was heavily slanted against Stardock. It's not a formal ruling on the merits of the larger case, and Stardock can re-argue and present new evidence if those points come up again.

There will be a much larger battle at the dispositive motion hearing in May. That fight will have a real impact on how things turn out, as the Judge throws out any claims that she decides don't have enough legal support under them.
krulle wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:49 am
if the main case jury decides that there is indeed no infringing stuff in Origins, it will all count for nothing, and F&P will still loose the full case.
Well, there are multiple counts on both sides in case, so there will probably be a mix of wins and losses on both sides. It's entirely possible that the jury decides that SC:O isn't infringing P&F's copyrights, and that P&F's post didn't infringe Stardock's trademark, for example. Then both sides walk away having achieved nothing but enriching the lawyers.

User avatar
Alvarin
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Alvarin » Thu Jan 03, 2019 7:59 pm

PR3&FF referenced the court thing here - https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019 ... nstruction
To be angry is to punish yourself for the errors of others.

PRH
ZEXy Beast
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2018 4:58 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by PRH » Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:06 pm

And here is Stardock's response:

https://forums.starcontrol.com/492870/a ... k-they-own

As it is, it's easy to see why Stardock responded to this in such a way. I think we all understand that F&P didn't claim to own each of the individual ideas they listed in their chart, but that these ideas, combined together, add up to substantial similarity to SC2. I'd very much like to know what kind of artistic expression of interstellar travel F&P would think would be similar enough to SC2's expression, but still non-infringing (SC3 is too different for any comparison to be meaningful). Similarly, I'd like to know what kind of expression Stardock would consider infringing, aside from a pixel-to-pixel copy, obviously.
Last edited by PRH on Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alvarin
ZFP Peacekeeper
Posts: 2081
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 7:12 am
Location: Israel

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Alvarin » Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:38 pm

Quoting GMOrz,
reply 5
You're ignoring the bigger picture: while individual aspects are clearly not eligible for copyright in and of themselves, the broader "Look and Feel" is (debatably/potentially) copyrightable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Look_and_feel#Lawsuits

This is hardly the first time a software company has faced a copyright claim on the grounds of "look and feel" either. From that Wikipedia link: "Apple Computer was notable for its use of the term look and feel in reference to their Mac OS operating system. The firm tried, with some success, to block other software developers from creating software that had a similar look and feel. Apple argued that they had a copyright claim on the look and feel of their software, and even went so far as to sue Microsoft, alleging that the Windows operating system was illegally copying their look and feel."

I'm not saying that P&F's claim has merits! Just that you're arguing it on the wrong level.

You can't break the claim down to it's component pieces and evaluate those separately: you have to look at the work as a whole. It's similar to what P&F said in their blog post, you can't copyright words, but you can copyright "Dune". You can't copyright "the color red", but you might be able to copyright "a place called hyperspace, which is colored red, has occasional streaks of light, and uses holes to denote visit-able worlds"
Do you have any idea how many Harry Potter clones books are out there with just a few changes? SCO is not a clone of SC2 but even if it were, it's obviously a very different game experience.
"We can't be wrong, other people are doing it"
To be angry is to punish yourself for the errors of others.

Krulle - unlogged

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Krulle - unlogged » Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:56 pm

And plenty of Harry Potter clones got sued and lost the cases.
Tanja Grotter, for example....

See Harry Potter lawsuits and where to find them.

So, the comparison fails, and again actually favours Paul and Fred's viewpoint.
Yes, there are plenty copies of miss Rowling's work out there, yet when they go commercial, they get taken down.
(except for Tanja Grotter's original, as Russian courts do not decide favourably when rich westerners go there, yet a Dutch translation with only 8k copies foreseen got barred.)

User avatar
Now and Forever
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:03 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Now and Forever » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:11 am

Elestan wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:36 pm
It's a modest early victory as we start to move into the legal mid-game. It reduces Stardock's income, and thus puts somewhat more financial pressure on them, but they got a full quarter of sales out of SC:O, which should have taken some of the pressure off. It would have been a bigger deal if they had successfully blocked the initial release of SC:O in September.
Perhaps it could be considered a big win in the PR game. Snooping around though I don't know what was left to win there. ;-)

Sales were lukewarm and reviews were mixed. So while the income stream brought cash flow the product valuation in it's current condition isn't stellar. So at least there is that. I can't really feel great about celebrating this as there are people who put stake into that product who didn't do anything wrong. So I will pour out a small amount from my 40 oz beverage and move on.

Anyways, weird being here on this forum after being a fan of Starcon (which is the name forever for me) since I was old enough that at the time I am positive my parents would have cursed Skylanders for existing if it did. I didn't mean to get involved in this specific conversation but it is kinda hard not to. I did vet the case rabidly, perhaps sadly, and found little to no fault in the defendant. Feels bad man.

Best of luck to you Dogar and Kazon, and I look forward to building a fan site for Star Control: Ghost of the Precursors (which I will call starcon gotp to everyone I talk to about the game. :ugeek:
Attention Interloper

Matthias
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:35 am

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Matthias » Fri Jan 04, 2019 7:27 am

Elestan wrote:
Thu Jan 03, 2019 5:36 pm
It's a modest early victory as we start to move into the legal mid-game. It reduces Stardock's income, and thus puts somewhat more financial pressure on them, but they got a full quarter of sales out of SC:O, which should have taken some of the pressure off. It would have been a bigger deal if they had successfully blocked the initial release of SC:O in September.
Could they have blocked it in September? I think I saw something about how P&F were planning to file the DCMA earlier, but agreed to hold off on it until it went before the judge. The implication seemed to be, again keeping in mind I am completely clueless to legal matters, that had they filed in September, GoG and Valve would have honored it, but they decided to wait until the judge ruled on it first?

If P&F did file it in September and Stardock delayed the release date, and then the judge decided the DCMA should not have happened, would P&F been made to pay damages resulting from the unfair DCMA? Would that have been the risk they were avoiding?

krulle
Ilwrath torturer
Posts: 478
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:01 pm

Re: Sequels strife

Post by krulle » Fri Jan 04, 2019 11:42 am

Apparently, yes. They seem to have tried to not interfere with the main release, which reduces the risk for having to pay damages if they loose the case. But also this increases the risk fomStardock considerably, as every sold copy increases the damages to be paid to FF and PR if Stardock is found guilty of violating a copyright held by FF and PR...

And yes, they could have filed a DMCA notice in September.
I am glad they did not, and awaited a decision by the judge on Stardock's request for an injunction.
But then, after the decision it was obvious that FF and PR would have to file a DMCA takedown request to show they mean it.

Now to wait for the full case to start rolling.

Matthias
Hunam adventurer
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2018 4:35 am

Re: Sequels strife

Post by Matthias » Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:21 pm

Lior Leser will be releasing a new video analyzing the DCMA decision. I asked him if he knew about the settlement offer that P&F gave, and he didn’t. He read it and said it was “a sweetheart deal” and that Stardock should have taken it. He said he might make a follow up video to address it. Maybe Brad will listen to him.

Post Reply