[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="637" id="3712133"]The same goes to UQM, things that shouldn't be added to it which could be added later or someone later releasing a game commercially using UQM as the base.[/quote] 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.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="634" id="3712129"]Again: Stardock, like Atari before it, could shut down UQM at any time if that was what it wanted.[/quote] That's really the point that's triggering the discomfort. The UQM project has operated for the last 15 years under the assumption that it was fully independent and immune to any such threat, since we removed all use of the registered mark "Star Control". Now you are asserting that this was wrong, because every distinguishi
[quote who="Jafo" reply="627" id="3712076"] Quoting Elestan, reply 626 Brad could retire, or change his mind. Stardock could sell the franchise, or go bankrupt and have it be bought by EA. Or the world could end in fire and brimstone...[/quote] For the sake of Brad (and everyone else), I sincerely
[quote who="Jafo" reply="625" id="3712072"]At the top of this page is a link/button called 'New Topic'. Clicking on that will allow a user to post....a new topic, one even that can have the heading "What constitutes commercial use in fan art/communities/games?" [or whatever one wishes to title it] and the tangent/s can be explored ad infinitum.[/quote] Sure, sounds good; I'm happy to split tangent topics off when desired. But probably tomorrow; sleep beckons. [quot
[quote who="Jafo" reply="617" id="3712045"]When did "Stardock response to Paul and Fred [Update]" become an open invitation to investigate the entire world of case Law, and, as stated more than once, cloud the issue?[/quote] Okay, that's fair; I do want to respect the thread's subject, so if this thread is reserved for Stardock's statements on the case, then other opinions or observations about it should go elsewhere. Is there ano
[quote who="eride" reply="619" id="3712055"]There is no case law being discussed here. I've not seen one holding cited in this (or any) thread.[/quote] Please read reply #598, where wibblenz cited https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1481575.html . Or the post immediately prior to your own, where I thanked him for doing so. So...I can't help but notice...yesterday you accused me of never c
[quote who="wibblenz" reply="615" id="3712034"]"Spathi" never had common-law trademark status (because it was only used internally within a product) This, (though I am no more a lawyer or have knowledge in the field than you do).[/quote] Well, Frogboy pretty clearly disagrees, and he does have enough experience that I give his opinion weight. Plus his lawyers are arguing it, and I doubt they would attempt that argument if it didn't have some kind of foundation. So
[quote who="wibblenz" reply="611" id="3712027"]Personally I am confused as to how "Spathi" can be a trademark at all right now - there is no product called "Spathi" being sold or distributed - there is only copyright, protecting the depiction of the Spathi as they appear in the existing games, but not the word "Spathi" by itself. There could be a trademark in the future ('SC:O:Spathi(tm)' DLC?) but it should not affect the use of Spathi in UQM as they are not distributing "Spathi".[/quote]</p
[quote who="Jafo" reply="612" id="3712028"] Quoting Elestan, reply 608 The only thing I opined on was that the answer to this question wasn't as clear-cut as pointing to the license, or the fact that the software is freely distributed. I'm looking for more insight "The UQM isn't engaging in c
[quote who="wibblenz" reply="610" id="3712022"]I agree - assuming the UQM project is not also the rights owner.[/quote] So, this is where another question creeps in: Let's assume that at the moment that the last SC3 sale was made (around 1999?), Accolade did have a common-law right in the name "Spathi". My understanding (feel free to correct me) is that the longer that right lies fallow, the weaker it becomes. In 2001, the UQM project began using the name "Spathi", w
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="605" id="3711972"]I'm stating that they are not engaged in commerce because they are not engaging in commerce. Are you suggesting UQM is a business entity? This is what happens when people who aren't familiar with the topic begin to opine.[/quote] The only thing I opined on was that the answer to this question wasn't as clear-cut as pointing to the license, or the fact that the software is freely distributed. I'm looking for more ins
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="602" id="3711959"]UQM is explicitly not engaging in commerce via its license.[/quote] I assumed that was the case in my earlier post. However, I'm no longer sure that "non-commercial" products (generally meaning available for free) can't be considered to be "used in commerce" (as applies to trademark issues). The law review article I cited suggests that this is not a simple issue. Are you stating a legal conclusion (as a non-lawyer) that t
[quote who="Jafo" reply="594" id="3711906"] 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'.[/quote] Oh, I agree. And I think if you l
[quote who="eride" reply="592" id="3711904"]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.[/quote] Several pages ago, I described the level of citation rigor I use (it's roughly equivalen
[quote]Not one citation to an actual source of law. Not one.[/quote] [quote](Elestan, from Reply #533) How about 15 U.S. Code § 1127 : A <a class="colorbox-load definedterm" title="mark" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-3344077-1913738695&term_occur=135&term_src=title
[quote who="eride" reply="587" id="3711896"]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?[/quote] So, I'm a little puzzle
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="585" id="3711889"] 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
[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="567" id="3711844"] Quoting Elestan, reply 564 I don't think I agree there. The UQM project rigorously scrubbed any mention of "Star Control" from the project specifically to avoid any potential accusation that it might be creating confusion by saying that it was associated wit
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="556" id="3711828"]There isn't really confusion because UQM is most definitely associated with Star Control. That's my uneducated opinion on the matter.[/quote] I don't think I agree there. The UQM project rigorously scrubbed any mention of "Star Control" from the project specifically to avoid any potential accusation that it might be creating confusion by saying that it was associated with that mark, and it has never had any con
[quote who="Taslios" reply="560" id="3711836"]Pretty sure the important phrase here is "If UQM wanted to start engaging in commerce"[/quote] 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'll add that if anyone has a legal citation for whether non-commercial use triggers an obligation to defend a trademark, it would be great to read it, rather than speculate on the question.&n
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="556" id="3711828"]Now, if UQM wanted to start engaging in commerce (i.e. making money) then we'd care (or Atari before us).[/quote] That can't happen; UQM's artistic content is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA .
[quote who="Taslios" reply="545" id="3711787"]Part of me wants to point out that Atari technically could have shut down UQM at any time...[/quote] Prior to Stardock filing the trademarks on "The Ur-Quan Masters" and the alien names, the UQM community believed that "Star Control" was the only trademark in play, and the UQM project was renamed specifically to avoid using that trademark. We won't really know if Atari could have enforced the other marks unless we get court and/or US
[quote who="Elestan" reply="542" id="3711783"]Most of the people [on the UQM forums] are mainly concerned because the name of the project for the last 15 years has been "The Ur-Quan Masters", and Stardock has just tried to trademark that phrase, as well as the alien names used in the games, which would be quite difficult to change. And while we know that Brad has said he means no ill toward the project...well, ten years ago, who would have guessed he'd be crossing swords with Paul and F
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="540" id="3711779"]The fact that both parties (Atari and Paul) performed as if the trademark was active and valid when they set up the GOG agreement is pretty much all you need to know. If they disagreed, that would have been the time to argue it. Now, that ship has sailed. The trademark has been in active use for years. This is a fact. I feel confident enough to state publicly that I suspect Steinberg, Paul and Fred's IP attorney, has explained this to them.[/quote
[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="535" id="3711769"]If the other trademarks are 'new' and the old is cancelled then it means the new shouldn't have been trademarked at all. Why cancel the old one if they are going to let Stardock keep the new. It wouldn't make a difference.[/quote] I'm still not a lawyer, but if the old trademark was invalidated, and the new one hadn't been filed yet when they made their original blog post, it seems like it would at least make it harder for Sta