Frogboy Frogboy

Stardock response to Paul and Fred [UPDATE]

Stardock response to Paul and Fred [UPDATE]

UPDATE: Make sure you read the official statement from Stardock regarding newer events.

 

Re: November's blog post by Paul and Fred claiming Stardock's objection to their new game being promoted as a "true sequel" constitutes Stardock preventing them from doing a new game.

We are disappointed that Paul and Fred, two people we have a great deal of respect and admiration for, have chosen to imply that we are somehow preventing them from working on their new game. 

Stardock has been nothing but supportive of their new project and wish them the best. I personally made the post here on StarControl.com in support of it.

With regards to their contentions:

First, as many people know, the classic Star Control games have been available for sale long before Stardock acquired the rights from Atari four years ago.  For the entirety of the time we have held the rights, they have been getting paid for those sales.  If they had an objection to the games being sold this is something that could and should have been addressed before we were ever involved. 

Second, we have stated, repeatedly and consistently for over four years that we are not using any of the aliens from the classic series.  As we have stated, our position is that, to the best of our knowledge, the classic alien IP is owned by them. 

We have also discussed, at length, why it wasn't commercially viable for us to attempt to continue or retell the Ur-Quan story. 25 years is just too long of a gap.  This is one of the reasons why we have been so excited about Paul and Fred's project.  Their game frees us to introduce new characters and a new story into the new Star Control while allowing fans of the classic series a way to continue the classic story.  This strikes us as a win-win situation.

Lastly, when we acquired Star Control from Atari in 2013, many assets were transferred to us including the various publishing agreements to the Star Control franchise.  The short version is that the classic IP is messy. We understand that this makes them "really really angry" but we weren't a party to that agreement.  All we can do is try to put something together that releases them from the restrictions placed on their IP that they agreed to and transfer any and all rights and responsibilities to them.  We want them to make Ghosts but we don't want any liability or association with it.  

Given the disturbing and unanticipated post by Paul and Fred, we are persuaded more than ever that a clear and irrefutable document that makes it clear that we are not associated or involved with their new game is needed. 

We have nothing but respect and admiration for Paul and Fred and wish them well in their new project.  

Update 12/4/2017:

Paul and Fred continue to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the DOS-based Star Control games. If they have any documentation to provide evidence to their assertions, we have yet to see them. 

Stardock, by contrast, possesses a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licensing and sales agreement that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade that has Paul Reiche's signature along with a signed distribution agreement between Atari and GOG for the DOS Accolade Star Control games. 

The tone of their blog posts is similar to the kind of correspondence they had with us since the announcement of their Ur-Quan Masters successor, vague, full of demands and without any documentation.  

With all due respect to Paul and Fred, they really should talk to competent legal counsel instead of making blog posts.

Update 12/5/2017:

Dealing with the sales and distribution of 20+ year old DOS games is an unusual way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless...

Atari had transferred to Stardock a signed agreement between Atari's President and GOG that we assumed was the agreement. Paul and Fred claimed they were the ones who had set up the agreement and upon verification with GOG, we instructed them to terminate this agreement which they have which we appreciate.

The games are now correctly transferred to Stardock and we will continue to ensue that Fred and Paul receive royalty payments for the games per the publishing agreement. We apologize if anyone was inconvenienced.  

Old IP can be messy to deal with. The best way to deal with that is to have the parties talk to each other (as opposed to making public Internet posts) and work something out.   We remain committed to dealing with this situation with as much restraint and gentleness as possible.

Update 2/27/2018

Added link to https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred to address Paul and Fred's latest complaints.   

At this stage, the parties are seeking to resolve their disagreements in court.  Stardock wishes this could have been resolved otherwise.

For the record, if Paul and Fred had simply announced their game as a sequel to Ur-Quan Masters and requested Stardock to remove the DOS games from distribution, Stardock would have complied out of respect, even if we would have been unhappy that they chose now, after 25 years, to jump back in the middle of Stardock's efforts to bring Star Control back.

However, by promoting their new game as a "direct-sequel" to Star Control (and in other places as the "true" sequel) while using the Star Control box art (which is owned by Stardock)  a great deal of consumer confusion has been created requiring Stardock to protect its IP rights.

Other links:

7,354,479 views 688 replies
Reply #576 Top

Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 553


Quoting Frogboy,

Hmm. But doesn't that mean that the UQM project was already a violation of the SC mark despite not actually using the name?

Yes, but at some point stardock was willing to work with this. From reading the forums, not any actual knowledge on the case, or law involving this I am talking about myself.

Reply #577 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 558


Quoting Frogboy,
That can't happen; UQM's artistic content is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA.

This sounds like a summary of a GNU I'm kind of familiar with this from my knowledge of linnux. It specifically says you can't use it for commercial use.

Reply #578 Top

Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 559


Quoting Taslios,
to my not legal expert... yes.  However as UQM project was not trying to sell anything or make a profit on something it is actually probably protected by the same laws that protect fan fiction and parody.     

Most fan projects such as the Star Trek Axxanar project violate either copyright or trademark or both in some form, but most companies realize that suing their fans is counter productive for the long term business...



Don't trademarks have to be defended or risk being lost though? Whenever a fan project is shut down by Megacorp X, there's always a couple of people going "Well they had to shut it down, because otherwise they'd lose the trademark".

I'm not making assertions either way, just noting the discrepancy.

Well one reason they are hard to sue is because they are not allowed to make money off this. I don't think this includes donations. And pretty much when they say making money that is more of a personal thing. This is gutsy for not knowing any specifics on the subject.

Reply #579 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 569


Quoting Arch Zero,






Quoting Elestan,

    • Didn't think that the project's use of those marks mattered

 


This is what probably protects most fan based films.

Reply #580 Top

Quoting Arch, reply 568


Quoting SirPrimalform,
Not exclusively. The contents of a book are copyright, not trademark.

I see no difference between that and the words in a game, but perhaps the law does?



 

Words as in names.

 

Yes, but if you haven't trademarked those names (characters, places etc.) then they are simply part of the copyright of the work.

Reply #581 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 574

Words as in, individual words or short phrases.  

I can trademark the word Drengin or the word Drengin Empire.  I cannot copyright them.

 

You can, but if you haven't trademarked them then they're simply part of the copyright of the overall work.

Reply #582 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 576


Quoting SirPrimalform,






Quoting Frogboy,


Hmm. But doesn't that mean that the UQM project was already a violation of the SC mark despite not actually using the name?

Yes, but at some point stardock was willing to work with this. From reading the forums, not any actual knowledge on the case, or law involving this I am talking about myself.

I'm talking about from the UQM's inception onwards. If UQM was violating the SC trademark then Atari's failure to defend it might have weakened it.

Or, UQM doesn't violate the SC trademark (because all references to Star Control as a name were removed).

 

I think most people's understanding of the situation was the latter, but according to Brad he thinks that UQM does use the SC trademark (either fair use or infringement).

Reply #583 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 578
Well one reason they are hard to sue is because they are not allowed to make money off this. I don't think this includes donations. And pretty much when they say making money that is more of a personal thing. This is gutsy for not knowing any specifics on the subject.

I don't mean sued for damages, but I've seen a lot of completely non-profit fan projects issued C&D letters. Are you saying that if they ignored the C&D there would be no consequences?

Reply #584 Top

Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 582

I think most people's understanding of the situation was the latter, but according to Brad he thinks that UQM does use the SC trademark (either fair use or infringement).

I'm pretty sure I said "I don't know".  

I do know there would be a problem if it was being used in commerce.

Reply #585 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 562

Right...that was my point.  The UQM project can't engage in commerce, because (aside from any trademark issues) its license terms prohibit it.

I am glad to see you recognize this.  There was a side discussion on the UQM forums implying that the UQM had trademark rights which, of course, it does not as it has not engaged in commerce.

 

Reply #586 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 585


Quoting Elestan,

Right...that was my point.  The UQM project can't engage in commerce, because (aside from any trademark issues) its license terms prohibit it.


I am glad to see you recognize this.  There was a side discussion on the UQM forums implying that the UQM had trademark rights which, of course, it does not as it has not engaged in commerce.

While it may seem a contradiction, after doing a bit of research, it appears to be possible to have a non-commercial use in commerce.  Many freely-available open-source projects have trademarks.  The issue is apparently complex enough that someone wrote a fairly lengthy law review article (called "When is Use in Commerce a Non-Commercial Use") about it.   Thinking about it, that might mean my statement above about the UQM project not engaging in commerce was inaccurate.

Reply #587 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 586

While it may seem a contradiction, after doing a bit of research, it appears to be possible to have a non-commercial use in commerce.  Many freely-available open-source projects have trademarks.  The issue is apparently complex enough that someone wrote a fairly lengthy law review article (called "When is Use in Commerce a Non-Commercial Use") about it.   Thinking about it, that might mean my statement above about the UQM project not engaging in commerce was inaccurate.

Again, deceptive and meaningless post. According to your "research," what are examples of factual circumstances where a non-commercial use is considered in commerce? How are any of the alleged facts in this dispute similar? What is the actual language of the statutes/regs/holdings your research discovered so others (who also have no idea of what the law is) can verify your statements aren't completely made-up?

Reply #588 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 584


Quoting SirPrimalform,

I think most people's understanding of the situation was the latter, but according to Brad he thinks that UQM does use the SC trademark (either fair use or infringement).



I'm pretty sure I said "I don't know".  

I do know there would be a problem if it was being used in commerce.

 

What you said was:

Quoting Frogboy, reply 551

What would prevent a third party from having the Ur-Quan in their game would be the Star Control trademark.  You’d need the trademark holder to cooperate.

 

UQM has the Ur-Quan in it, therefore according to you it is using the SC mark. Whether it's being used for commerce or not, and with or without permission, by your reasoning UQM uses the SC trademark. Am I misreading what you wrote?

Reply #589 Top

Quoting eride, reply 587
Again, deceptive and meaningless post. According to your "research," what are examples of factual circumstances where a non-commercial use is considered in commerce? How are any of the alleged facts in this dispute similar? What is the actual language of the statutes/regs/holdings your research discovered so others (who also have no idea of what the law is) can verify your statements aren't completely made-up?

So, I'm a little puzzled.  You've often derided me for making legal statements.  But I was replying to a statement by Brad, where he asserted, without citations (emphasis added):

There was a side discussion on the UQM forums implying that the UQM had trademark rights which, of course, it does not as it has not engaged in commerce.

My reply only suggested, with considerably less certainty, that "it appears to be possible to have a non-commercial use in commerce" citing a list of over 50 examples of freely-available software packages bearing trademarks as well as a 58 page law review article.

And your response is to accuse me of being "deceptive", asserting that I'm deliberately making statements that I know to be false.  I prefer to assume the best of people, but I can't help thinking that you seem to be both applying a double-standard, and making completely baseless accusations.

Reply #590 Top

Everyone knows Brad is biased; in common parlance, duh. You portray yourself non-partisan; as speaking only what is true, what is factual to the best of your understanding. The problem is, your level of understanding is superficial or nonexistent. I've called you out repeatedly to provide any substantiation for your repeated statements of what is the law governing the issues in dispute.

You haven't once cited any source of law. Your only defense is to label me a troll. Again, you are making factual claims. You are the person who should be able to justify your own statements. Not one citation to an actual source of law. Not one. Your statements are equivalent to a climate change denier who has no background in the hard sciences, has never worked in any related field, and completely lacks the ability to substantiate their *opinions*. 

You would be hard pressed to find a post where I have made an authoritative statement as to any issue in dispute. You have dozens. If you knew anything about what you were talking about, you'd be more restrained in your statements.

Reply #591 Top

Not one citation to an actual source of law. Not one.

(Elestan, from Reply #533)

How about 15 U.S. Code § 1127:

A mark shall be deemed to be “abandoned” if either of the following occurs:

(1) When its use has been discontinued with intent not to resume such use. Intent not to resume may be inferred from circumstances. Nonuse for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment. “Use” of a mark means the bona fide use of such mark made in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.

That's the actual U.S. legal code pertaining to trademark abandonment.

Reply #592 Top

You made a citation that actually was irrelevant to your claim.

I actually never saw that cite because it slipped between my response to an earlier post. I'll reframe my statement. You've made one citation and it was irrelevant to your claim. FYI, you can never cite a statute alone in any legal field. A statute alone never has meaning.

Non-Fred and Paul lackeys should visit the UKM forum where Elestan freely cites wikipedia and other blog entries as the substantiation for his claims here.

Reply #593 Top

Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 583


Quoting admiralWillyWilber,
Well one reason they are hard to sue is because they are not allowed to make money off this. I don't think this includes donations. And pretty much when they say making money that is more of a personal thing. This is gutsy for not knowing any specifics on the subject.



I don't mean sued for damages, but I've seen a lot of completely non-profit fan projects issued C&D letters. Are you saying that if they ignored the C&D there would be no consequences?

no im not saying that. I actually dont know the law behind this. What i had heard from friends is that the reason people dont get sued from fan based movies is that they cant make any profit from movies. If i was trying to say make spore, or simcity which has gone bankrupt, and then got a cease, and discist order then i would probably destroy everything involved in this. I would not certanly take my own advice on this. I was just trying to join the conversation. If you got a c and d letter my advice would be to stop.

Im reading people are trying to win arguments so bad, even if it means at the expense of the ur quan master project. Which brad says he doesnt care about it. I would say it would be betger to stop mentioning it as proof of infringement on a trademark, and let Brad leave it alone instead of bringing it up.

Reply #594 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 589

So, I'm a little puzzled. You've often derided me for making legal statements.

I think the issue is that it'd be preferable to rephrase that as 'making legal speculations'.

Perception.  How people view COMMENTS made vs. 'statements of fact'.

Adding "I am not a Lawyer" doesn't really cover it other than itself being [probably] its own 'statement of fact'.

Forum discussions/debates are ALWAYS fraught with danger in that more often than not some of ones audience may be infinitely more qualified to hold a view on what's 'stated', so it's always best to choose one's words wisely.

Meanwhile, let's everyone remain civil.

It matters not whether someone has a pro P & F stance/opinion, or an anti one.  We are ALL fellow Forum members and thus are required to treat each other with civility...;)

Reply #595 Top

Quoting eride, reply 592
You made a citation that actually was irrelevant to your claim.

I actually never saw that cite because it slipped between my response to an earlier post. I'll reframe my statement. You've made one citation and it was irrelevant to your claim. FYI, you can never cite a statute alone in any legal field. A statute alone never has meaning.

Several pages ago, I described the level of citation rigor I use (it's roughly equivalent to Wikipedia).  If the moderators want to enforce a higher standard of citation rigor, they can do so, and I'll be happy to comply, but if that happens, I would ask that it be fairly enforced on everyone.  Lacking that, I would suggest that it isn't really appropriate to act as a self-appointed enforcer of citation standards, in a forum where people are having casual discussions.

Also, I'd suggest that it might be worthwhile to try to use at least a modicum of courtesy, even when you disagree with someone; constructive suggestions are always much more welcomed than vitriolic accusations. (ninja-ed by moderator)

Reply #596 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 594


Quoting Elestan,

So, I'm a little puzzled. You've often derided me for making legal statements.


I think the issue is that it'd be preferable to rephrase that as 'making legal speculations'.

Oh, I agree.  And I think if you look at my posts, you'll find that I've usually (I do make mistakes) been phrasing them as speculation.  For example, the impetus for this most recent tangent was me saying:

...it appears to be possible to have a non-commercial use in commerce.
(and citing two references that gave me that impression).

If I'd wanted to make a conclusory statement, I would have said "it is possible".  In this case, I'd found a law review article that seemed to support the speculation, but it was a bit over my head, so I wanted to bring it up and see if anyone more qualified wanted to look at it.  Part of my puzzlement at Eride's hostility is because he often reacts as though I were asserting facts, when I chose my words deliberately to indicate that I was merely speculating.  Moreover, his use of 'deceptive' indicates that he believes that I'm being deliberately misleading, and I'm not sure what that could be based on.

Reply #597 Top

I was thinking of something that was asked earlier. Why would you not turn ashes into capcom, even though you dont have the capcom trademark. This cinversation turned into something else at the time. With all the regular updates you would think stardock could still do this.

Well first if you turned ashes into capcom at this late into the game, you would be stating that ashes is losing the game. 

You would be risking a lawsuit with capcom.

You would be upsetting the current fans of the game.

If you make a game you wouldnt want to be known as a copycat of another game.

If you didnt want something in the game, or if you wanted to change something in the game, or didnt like something already in the game. You would be second guessing yourself.

Also at this point it would probably not be worth the cost.

Reply #599 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 556


Quoting SirPrimalform,

Hmm. But doesn't that mean that the UQM project was already a violation of the SC mark despite not actually using the name?



(not a lawyer) I don't know.  It's not being used in commerce and would fall in the same category as fan films and such.  There's a cottage industry of Star Trek fan films for instance.  There isn't really confusion because UQM is most definitely associated with Star Control.  That's my uneducated opinion on the matter.   

Now, if UQM wanted to start engaging in commerce (i.e. making money) then we'd care (or Atari before us).

Reposting my post where I said, I don’t know since Primal must not have seen it.

Reply #600 Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 593
t. I actually dont know the law behind this. What i had heard from friends is that the reason people dont get sued from fan based movies is that they cant make any profit from movies. If i was trying to say make spore, or simcity which has gone bankrupt, and then got a cease, and discist order then i would probably destroy everything involved in this. I would not certanly take my own advice on this. I was just trying to join the conversation. If you got a c and d letter my advice would be to stop.

Im reading people are trying to win arguments so bad, even if it means at the expense of the ur quan master project. Which brad says he doesnt care about it. I would say it would be betger to stop mentioning it as proof of infringement on a trademark, and let Brad leave it alone instead of bringing it up.

Thing is, I don't think it does infringe upon the SC mark.