Elestan

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="45" id="3712497"]If UQM is touching that trademark, the terms of NC-CC are insufficient limits on UQM's operational independence to allow Stardock to let it keep operating without intrusive editorial control.[/quote] So, it sounds like you are asserting that it is impossible for Stardock to do as I suggest without harming its ability to enforce its trademark even against projects not covered by CC-NC. If that assertion is true, then I agree w

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="42" id="3712471"]You still wont trust him, even if he has no reason for this. I bet dimes to dollars he supports what you are doing about making a free game.[/quote] I have no reason to doubt his support for the UQM project, but in matters of legal risk, I believe that it is prudent not to rely on informal assurances.

[quote who="wibblenz" reply="41" id="3712470"] Quoting Elestan, reply 40 I contend that there is: Presuming its current registrations are approved, Stardock will have potential trademark claims against any "use in commerce" of the alien races. Informally then, Stardock's trademark applications don't even meet

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="38" id="3712463"]Again, there is nothing for Stardock to actually waive.[/quote] I contend that there is: Presuming its current registrations are approved, Stardock will have potential trademark claims against any "use in commerce" of the alien races. Informal reassurances about what Stardock considers "use in commerce" are welcome, of course, but are not binding enough to instill confidence. I am advocating that they formally waive the ri

[quote who="Gnome_De_Plume" reply="35" id="3712454"]The argument "This project is exactly like Star Control for every way that matters, and for every person out there who may want to play it. Except for lawyers and judges; for them this has no relation at all to Star Control" is the sort of getting-away-with-a-technicality approach that seems like it might make people look for any excuse to rule against them.[/quote] It seems to me that if a company didn't want to allow this, th

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="33" id="3712442"]As a "good faith" gesture it would be literally an empty gesture, since Stardock would still be the owner of the trademark, and they're the only ones that can decide whether to take action if they suspect infringement. No agreement is going to change that, because that power is fundamentally part of what being the trademark owner means.[/quote] If that's correct, then I agree with you. But I believe this question requires a real IP at

[quote who="Gnome_De_Plume" reply="32" id="3712441"]I can see how it *would* be interesting and important to open source projects that are derived from another project, as in this case. But I don't think I understand yet how any of the projects I'm familiar with, UQM and others, actually *have* any realistic level of legal independence and surety.[/quote] That question really revolves around whether trademark protection really is as expansive as Brad has suggested. If it i

[quote who="Gnome_De_Plume" reply="30" id="3712437"]Forgive me if this is a question that's obvious to everyone else, but when there's talk about "What if Stardock (or anyone else) sued UQM?", who is it, exactly, that would be sued?[/quote] If such a thing were to happen, it would probably never actually reach the lawsuit stage. There would be Cease & Desist letters sent to the developers, the website/code hosts, or both. Most of them, not having the resources to fight

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="26" id="3712415"]Ironically a group of people who believed that software should be free started this. Linnux coming out of this; even though it was originally made to learn the 386 better. Their biggest backers have been businesses the power they were supposed to fight. I'm not even sure you guys; even new of the motto that started in the eighties. You guys would be grouped with these people; even, if you did not know of this.[/quote] Well, I've

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="24" id="3712413"]Or put Star control 1,2, and 3 into a new modern Star Control engine, and give it back to you to control.[/quote] This seems very unlikely to me. Stardock would have to release the SC:O game engine under the GPL, and I think they've got way too much money invested in it to do that anytime soon. [quote]If their is an interest shown it was to give you guys control of Star control 3[/quote] That gesture is appr

[quote who="SabreRunner" reply="22" id="3712382"]The question of whether UQM is violating copyrights or not is up to the law itself. And if they are violating copyrights, it is Stardock's obligation to act on it or else they weaken their position in regards to claiming those copyrights.[/quote] So, as mentioned in reply #15, there hasn't been any suggestion so far that Stardock has any copyright on Star Control 2 , or on the UQM project that came from it. All of

[quote who="wibblenz" reply="16" id="3712315"]UQM can't infringe trademark if they aren't engaging in commerce, and can't infringe copyright Stardock don't have, so how exactly would it get shut down?[/quote] I believe the idea is that if Stardock felt that UQM or some derivative of it did something that counted as "commercial" (in their judgement), they would shut it down. The difficulty is that there are three different definitions of "commercial" in play: One de

[quote who="wibblenz" reply="14" id="3712309"] Quoting Elestan, reply 13 I'm not sure Brad's interpretation of trademark is limited in the way you describe; he seemed to be suggesting that he could do more than just force it to rename. I have to assume that's due to the copyright Stardock claims, not the tradem

[quote who="wibblenz" reply="10" id="3712297"]In any case, I don't see how the project is at any particular risk under trademark law, as trademark does not cover code, voiceovers, dialogue, graphics, sounds, music, etc. It could just relaunch under a different name (assuming the copyright side of things is all OK).[/quote] I'm not sure Brad's interpretation of trademark is limited in the way you describe; he seemed to be suggesting that he could do more than just force it to rename.</

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="9" id="3712292"]If you are trying to construct a narrative wherein you want UQM's activities to have relevance to the lawsuit, the only way that narrative would work would be if UQM was engaged in some sort of in-commerce activity using the Star Control trademark. If UQM was doing this, Stardock, as the trademark owner, would be legally obliged to take action against UQM.[/quote] Therein lies the risk: UQM's license prohibits charging for the software

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="7" id="3712282"]The "significant difference" matters a lot less than you are making it out to. If Stardock wanted to assert its trademark, it doesn't matter if UQM has a copyright on every bit of art or code in the project itself. Any legal case would be judged on the merits of the trademark and its usage, the copyright, an entirely separate legal point, plays no part in that judgment.[/quote] Sure, but my point was that UQM is not reliant on any game's cop

(Another reply from the prior thread): [quote who="zwabbit" reply="638" id="3712134"]The norm is for fan projects to exist at the sufferance of the trademark owners, and this norm has worked just fine for most projects out there. UQM is not special in this regard.[/quote] There is a significant difference with UQM: Most fan projects are leveraging the publisher's game's engine, content, or both, and therefore require the use of the original game's copyright , in

[quote who="wibblenz" reply="2" id="3712266"]The UQM project attributes copyright to Toys for Bob, so it is not completely disassociated from the whole mess.[/quote] I noticed that myself a while ago, and have been curious about it. If T4B did own the copyright, then Activision would now control it. But according to a post by Brad long ago, Paul told him that he (Paul) owned the UQM copyright personally. My suspicion is that as CEO of Toys4Bob, Paul may have sold o

So, I'll start by responding to a post from the prior thread : [quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="659" id="3712248"]All stardock would need is royaltys. Stardock does work with other game companies to make games. Toys for bob is real, but they are not willing to pay for a right to make a sequel.[/quote] One point of correction: "Toys for Bob" isn't involved in this. Paul and Fred are working as individuals outside their company, presumably beca

Since this thread is already pretty long, and it seems like we may be diverting again from the posted topic, I've taken the moderator's suggestion and created a new thread for discussion of the litigation that doesn't strictly fit under "Stardock responding to Paul and Fred". How about we move further discussion there , until P&F post something new for Sta

The "Stardock Response to Paul and Fred" thread has gotten a bit long-in-the-tooth, and the moderator suggested that it might be a good idea to split discussion that isn't actually Stardock responding to P&F over to a new thread. So, I've set up this thread to discuss the litigation more generally. Since people understandably have strong feelings on this topic, I'd like to suggest a few guidelines: Be respectful. People c

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="649" id="3712165"]The public covenant would have about as much legal force as what Stardock is currently doing, since it can be withdrawn at any time at their discretion.[/quote] That would be a question for an IP lawyer: "To what extent can a company's public statements limit the scope of its ability to assert its trademark rights in the future?" I don't pretend to know the answer. I know Microsoft, at one point, tried to <a href="https

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="644" id="3712144"]Who, specifically would this agreement be with? You can't create an agreement for UQM for the same reason it can't engage in commerce. There is not "they" here. It is an open-source project. Copyright licenses you can release into the wind (from public domain to various open source agreements).[/quote] First off, I want to thank you for making the effort to write that very detailed post. I will try to giv

[quote who="BlackSmokeDMax" reply="642" id="3712141"] Quoting Elestan, reply 641 Well, if Brad did the trademark license as proposed above (#636), Stardock could go after anyone who broke the CC license's non-commercial terms. And the UQM community would probably cheer it on. Think the largest issue here

[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="640" id="3712136"] Quoting Elestan, reply 639 That can't happen. The code is under GPL, and the content under CC-BY-NC-SA. Both licenses are viral; any derivative work is automatically under the same restrictions. Yeah, it still doesn't stop people from doing it.[/quote