[quote who="Taslios" reply="530" id="3711760"]Even if everything the fan community over at your other forum board wants to think is true and Brad is just a money grubbing jerk being a jerk to the fans...[/quote] I don't believe that's what the people there think. I know it's not what I think. Most of the people there 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 phras
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="537" id="3711772"]As someone who has spoken at length with counsel on this particular matter, that argument is beyond a stretch. Filing a false trademark renewal would amount to fraud. Unless you want to go on record accusing the individuals at Infogrames who signed the forms of having committed a felony, a pretty serious charge to make against someone (libelous I would imagine) you would be well served to quit with the legal analysis of things you have
[quote who="eride" reply="535" id="3711765"]You've taken one sentence out of a statute and not done any research on associated regulations and case law.[/quote] Actually, I read the Crash Dummies case a month ago or more, when I initially researched this topic (though I do thank you for providing the reference). That's why my statement was: [quote]Three years of non-use is enough to establish a presumption that a trademark has been abandoned, absent
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="533" id="3711763"]You need to check your sources... not a single thing about 3 years[/quote] How about 15 U.S. Code § 1127 : [quote]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&
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="529" id="3711759"]Quoting Elestan, reply 524 Three years of non-use is enough to establish a presumption that a trademark has been abandoned, absent evidence to the contrary. No it's 10 years between renewals. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+
[quote who="Taslios" reply="526" id="3711754"]I have my suspicion that one of the two games will be supported long after it is released..... and the other if released will have nothing more than fan support.[/quote] Stardock's long-term support for their games has certainly been one of their selling points for me. On the other hand, don't knock fan support: One could argue that thanks to the UQM project, "Star Control 2" has effectively been supported for 25 years.&n
[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="525" id="3711752"]I think it depends, if P&F get the old trademark cancelled they might as well try to get all of them cancelled.[/quote] I can't think of any basis that they could use to argue that the new "Star Control" trademark should be cancelled, and they weren't asking for it as of their last filing. [quote]Did Stardock got just this trademark from Atari or were others as well?[/quote] That's a disputed point. The "Star Co
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="523" id="3711748"]The thing is Atari did use it, Star Control III was under the Atari banner as well as Star Control IV "Simplistic flash game that was hosted on Atari's site which got launched just prior to renewing the trademark again"[/quote] Star Control III was published in 1996, and had probably stopped selling by around 1999, and the GoG sales didn't start until 2011. Three years of non-use is enough to establish a presumption that a trademark
[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="521" id="3711744"]This link isn't working.[/quote] Sorry; I seem to have trouble getting direct-to-reply links to work here. It's reply #176. [quote]EDIT: They do ask for one trademark to be cancelled. Their counter suit would make the trademark Stardock bought invalid or just part of it regarding SC1/2/3?[/quote] It would make the old trademark invalid. The argument for saying it should be cancelled was that Atari renewed i
[quote who="Arch Zero" reply="519" id="3711734"]If P&F have this contract which says the trademark reverted back to them since 2001 and give them control over what Stardock bought .[/quote] They have not claimed (as far as I can see) that the [i]trademark[/i] reverted back to them. Their claims include (among other things): 1. That the "Star Control" trademark essentially lapsed due to lack-of
[quote who="tingkagol" reply="514" id="3711669"]I've been quietly reading this thread and others like it on other forums that Elestan posts on. When this fiasco began, I was leaning more towards Stardock's side. When P&F's counterclaim was made public and seeing their arguments and exhibits, I began shifting to their side. Stardock's filing of trademarks for all relevant names in the SC1-2 games further pushed me to P&F's side (and perhaps angered me personally to a fault). But I stil
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="516" id="3711684"]When people give you a hard time, Elestan, it is because you say things like “not working under a typical contractor arrangement” as if you know what you’re talking about. There’s nothing unusual in the contract other than it’s pretty draconian on not allowing Paul and Fred to even use the trademarks “in any way”.[/quote] That's interesting; so are you saying that most game developers only yield th
[quote who="eride" reply="512" id="3711660"] Quoting Elestan, reply 511 Paul and Fred were not working under a typical contractor arrangement when they developed SC1&2. They had a negotiated contract that specified who owned which IP rights. ^ This. You actually have
[quote who="eride" reply="510" id="3711657"] Quoting Elestan, reply 508 Paul and Fred were not working under a typical contractor arrangement when they developed SC1&2. They had a negotiated contract that
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="506" id="3711651"]Unless somebody can successfully locate and represent a previous precedent for Paul & Fred, where assets owned by a publisher would revert back to a contractor and/or their subcontractors, things will not look good for Paul & Fred. Now unfortunately for my pessimistic side of the view... after all the dust settles I don't see either side coming out unscathed.[/quote] Paul and Fred were not working under a typical contrac
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="502" id="3711642"]To add upon what Eride has stated "which Eride could state a whole lot better" you're not adding examples of law rulings that support your arguments[/quote] Okay, so let me try to clarify what I feel proper discussion etiquette entails: Suppose I say a bunch of legaly stuff, including a specific claim: "X is true." Possible responses include: BAD response: "Everything you said is wrong, and people should
I'm content letting my reply (and an earlier one ) on the UQM forum speak for themselves. People are welcome to read your posts there, in isolation or in context, and decide for themselves whether they feel they were appropriate.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="495" id="3711518"]For example, you implied that the judge was somehow delivering an opinion on the merits of posted settlement discussions (that's certainly how I read it) when nothing of the kind took place (I doubt he read them).[/quote] I certainly didn't intend any such implication. The other poster had indicated that he felt that it was normal to take extreme positions in negotiations (citing you as an authority). Rather than ask people to
[quote who="Pyro411" reply="491" id="3711498"]Sure I have opinions on things but do my best not to represent them as hardcore facts.[/quote] As do I. If you can find a place where I've stated my opinion as a "hardcore fact" without sufficient evidence to back it up, please point it out to me, and I will either provide more support for it, or clarify that it's just opinion.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="487" id="3711487"]There is no one there with any legal expertise on that forum. But you seem to think a bunch of techies can somehow play Internet lawyer with “legal expertise”.[/quote] I've already responded to this line of argument over there, so I'll just link to it .
[quote who="eride" reply="482" id="3711430"]They banned me from UQM for pointing out that they didn't understand the law and that all of their legal conclusions were grossly incorrect. It isn't too much to ask that someone actually know more than a generic summary they read on a legal topic before they start typing out posts making conclusive statements about Stardock's wrongdoing. I guess pointing out facts in a non-aggressive manner is grounds for banning on that forum, if
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="481" id="3711427"]Before I gave up on the UQM they were delving into "assignment in gross" legal theories as if they had any idea of the concepts they were discussing all in the name of grasping at straws to find some way to retroactively prevent a new Star Control game. Real fans.[/quote] I'd look at it this way: Those are forums that for the last 15 years have been dedicated to discussions of a much loved open-source project called "The Ur-Qua
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="479" id="3711416"] Quoting Elestan, reply 477 I don't believe I've ever made an angry post about Star Control, nor one that complained about my posts being removed. If you find one, please tell me. Elestan, I was grouping you in with the fol
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="470" id="3711163"]I have seen a few newer posts on their SC reddit page. Most are PNF fans posting angrily such as Psycho, Icewind, Elestan and others. Mostly about how thier posts are removed.[/quote] I don't believe I've ever made an angry post about Star Control, nor one that complained about my posts being removed. If you find one, please tell me.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="322" id="3709434"] Quoting Talonious, reply 321 They (GoG) reached out to Atari's lawyers, and Atari's lawyers concurred with that assessment that those two games still properly belonged to Fred and Paul. GoG's own lawyers concurred, and they apologized to those two and offered to take the games off their p
