Elestan

[quote who="Jafo" reply="393" id="3714144"] Quoting Elestan, reply 391 This is a disputed question of law No it's not....but I'm sure you are hoping it is.[/quote] I'm sorry, but it is indisputably disputed. Stardock alleges it in its <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.32026

So, I see a significant amount of heat, and not much productive discussion, centered around the question of whether the "Star Control" trademark covers just the name (as some believe) or whether it can cover internal features like the aliens (as others believe). This is a disputed question of law that will end up being decided by the court, and my understanding was that we should avoid asserting answers to legal questions here (especially disputed ones). Can we agree to disagree o

[quote who="Taslios" reply="348" id="3714003"]What have Paul and Fred done for you lately? what have their actions shown that has you so loyal? What have Stardock's actions been that you are so willing to fall on your sword to champion Paul and Fred?[/quote] Thanks for asking. To start with, just to let you know where I'm coming from, I've been a fan of Stardock since GalCiv2, during which I made an effort to di

[quote who="Taslios" reply="362" id="3714025"]that's sorta kinda exactly my point.... without knowing the contracts and the details all of any of this is raw speculation.[/quote] Ah, but in this case, we do have the contract involved . Most of the talk is still speculation, of course; just a little bit less raw. [quote]so care to an

[quote who="Taslios" reply="356" id="3714019"]But yes... with the Fox trademarks for Xmen, Fantastic 4 and Deadpool... Marvel sold them the rights to the trademark back in the days when Marvel was nearly going bankrupt.[/quote] It's an interesting example, but it's hard to say if it actually parallels with this case without knowing what kind of licensing contracts were involved. I suspect that the IP tangles over comic book rights would make the Star Control legal battle look li

[quote who="bleybourne" reply="354" id="3714016"]The only disagreement on that has you, Lakstoties and the other armchair lawyers on one side, and actual real IP lawyers who do this for a living on the other side. Can you honestly not understand why we don't take you seriously?[/quote] So, let's think about that for a minute. We have two sides involved in a legal dispute. You seem to be suggesting that we should take the word of one of the parties on how the law applies to the c

[quote who="Taslios" reply="341" id="3713988"]But One would think that with Paul and Fred and how much you seemed to idolize them, something could have been worked out where they agreed to join press releases and published the end product through StarDock ... they get to publish using all the "free" good will and publicity that you created by reviving the game... You get the boost that having them making a game you publish would bring to cross sell SC:O...<

[quote who="Astrobia" reply="336" id="3713955"]As for my comment on the illegal claim, I'm referring to their filing for a takedown of Star Control 3, a game they had nothing to do with. Or at least so I've been lead to believe. If correct then that's categorised as a fake DCMA claim and the penalties for similar cases where they were found not to have a legal copyright claim so far have been around $125,000. The DMCA's for Star Control 1 and 2 might well stand depending on how this legal act

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="326" id="3713916"]Once they filed a suit to try to cancel our trademark it forced us to take a much firmer position with regards to Star Control and its related IP.[/quote] It really isn't valid to spin this as them forcing your hand, since you were the one who decided to use that trademark to sue them. Their response of trying to cancel the trademark was entirely expected once your suit was filed - there's no way their lawyer could have recommended d

[quote who="tingkagol" reply="318" id="3713896"]Wasn't it the sale on Steam that got DMCA'd because P&F didn't give Stardock permission to do so? (They gave permission to GoG together with Atari to continue selling the games.)[/quote] Good catch; fixed, thanks.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="315" id="3713888"]Substantially similar is the legal definition. Period. It either is or isn’t.[/quote] That makes it sound like it's an easy black & white question of fact. But my understanding is that it's up to the jury to decide, which means it's really a totally subjective crapshoot. If I were to look only at the art, I wouldn't say that it violates any copyright - it's a generic "Gray"-derived alien race. But if they were

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="310" id="3713880"]None of what you just posted has anything to do with trademark.[/quote] Quite true. [quote]It's just a long, elaborate, strawman, Elestan.[/quote] I beg to differ. I was responding to Astrobia's point #2 where they talked about DMCA notices, which are entirely copyright-related.

[quote who="Astrobia" reply="306" id="3713868"]1: [Stardock] even offered them the license at one point but they refused. Regardless they wanted PF to make their game and started talks with them to negotiate them not undercutting SC:Origins. To that end, they wanted them not to launch at the same time and were happy for PF to release under the name Urquan masters or buy the license to SC at cost. 2: Instead of agreeing to reasonable terms PF went nuclear and started DMCA's (whic

The nice thing about taking a relaxing, mostly-unplugged vacation is that you can forget all about legal arguments on assorted internet forums. The downside is that when you return, there are a bunch of posts that you have to decide whether or not to respond to. In this case, since there's been a fresh thread made for litigation discussion, I'm going to hold back from restarting debates in this one, and suggest t

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="238" id="3712752"]If Ghosts were an independent work, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If the reference were purely nominative, this thing wouldn't be the giant charlie foxtrot it is now.[/quote] So, to clarify, are there any current statements or posts by P&F that you would consider as disqualifying GotP from being an independent work, or is this purely spilled milk from their initial post?

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="233" id="3712736"]Not only did they make it clear that they would... ...continue to market their new game as a sequel to Star Control 2, ...they simultaneously began to attack us publicly , ...issued DMCAs against Star Control 1,2 ...and 3 (and 3 we own the copyright to) ...while also claiming that Star Control: O

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="236" id="3712743"]The topic here is not about whether everything inside SC2 has trademark protection of some sort, but whether something that is derived from SC2 can cause confusion with the Star Control trademark itself.[/quote] Sure, I'll accept that refinement. But the implication still appears to be that you are saying that when a product contains (or consists mostly of) a literary work, the owner of the product's trademark can, on grounds of prod

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="232" id="3712735"]Not if the story is associated with the trademark and has the potential to cause confusion.[/quote] I'm going to ask for a citation on this point. Do you have an example where the courts have upheld the idea that a literary work itself (as opposed to a literary work's title or logo) can receive trademark protection? [quote]All of Brad's prior remarks about wanting P&F to do a sequel was implicitly contingent on, assuming

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="230" id="3712729"] Quoting Elestan, reply 229 When I parse this, it seems like they went out of their way to avoid saying that they were going to make "a sequel to Star Control: The Ur-Quan Masters", and instead used the more complex phrasing that they were going to make a sequel to the "adventure" from SC2

I'm only going to list one: 1. Compelling Story. The narrative hook was the best I think I've ever seen in any game: You finally get back to Earth, after having been incommunicado for 20 years, and discover that it has already fallen, with the morale of its people near the breaking point. And you have the technology to give them a chance to fight. Less than five minutes in, and you're hooked. I've introduced the game to a bunch of people, and as soo

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="163"]2. Because THIS was their response: This was in November. They absolutely knew we would eventually have to seek legal action.[/quote] When I parse this, it seems like they went out of their way to avoid saying that they were going to make "a sequel to Star Control: The Ur-Quan Masters", a

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="57" id="3712608"]I would argue that that declaration represents a far more meaningful gesture, one with actual legal standing, than the gesture that you are asking for.[/quote] What do you mean by "legal standing" here? Do you mean that you think it actually has an effect that Stardock could not simply reverse if it were to change its mind? That's a necessary criterion to be "meaningful" here, IMHO. [quote]My prior remark was to note

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="54" id="3712553"]Since they consider it impossible, from their perspective there is nothing for them to demonstrate willingness for.[/quote] Ever since I first proposed this idea, it's always been framed as being contingent on finding a way to do it without harming Stardock's ability to otherwise enforce its trademarks. If Stardock believe that to be impossible, then agreeing to the idea in principle (subject to that condition) costs it nothing, but s

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="49" id="3712522"]If you want Stardock to grant some sort of legal guarantee they won't go after UQM on trademark grounds, and this constitutes effectively a license to those trademarks, Stardock would need to assume editorial control. If you want UQM to maintain editorial independence, you cannot have a license to Stardock's trademarks or otherwise encroach/infringe upon those trademarks.[/quote] So, let me try to paraphrase again: Are you saying that

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="47" id="3712509"]UQM could be completely adhering to NC-CC conditions, but still be found to have infringed upon Stardock's trademark.[/quote] I agree, but Stardock still has the discretion to grant permission to use its trademark if it so desires. My argument is that it can choose to grant permission for these trademarks to be used in cases where the CC-NC license is being adhered to, just as it could decide to only grant such permission to projects