[quote who="Frogboy" reply="96" id="3707755"]Personally speaking, once Paul and Fred filed to cancel the Star Control trademark, something we have invested millions of dollars in, I don't have a lot of sympathy for them.[/quote] Just to check, are you referring to their counterclaim, or did they try to cancel the trademark before then? If before, then I would agree that that was a pretty aggressive move. If you mean in their counterclaim, I think it's important to note t
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="93" id="3707751"]Quoting tingkagol, reply 91 It's akin to stepping on your neighbor's grass and losing your entire house as penalty. Paul and Fred aren't stepping on Stardock's grass. They're trying to pull it out by the roots and salt the earth and then claim that it was Stardock's fault all along
[quote who="Hunam_" reply="90" id="3707731"]I've not seen as IOTA of data confirming Paul's statement. What I've seen is quite the opposite of it.[/quote] Which is why I invited Stardock to deny it, it whole or in part; I wasn't going to take Paul's word for Stardock's demands without providing the opportunity to respond. And they're still welcome to do so. But Frogboy's reply was a general attack on Paul's credibility rather than a specific denial of anything they said.&n
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="87" id="3707702"]There are a lot of things wrong with what they post. Here's a quick way to demonstrate their integrity: Re-read their post. [...] Look at the actions, not the words.[/quote] I appreciate that Stardock may have reason to doubt them; I've already called attention to some of their actions that I felt weren't entirely forthright. But a general accusation that they aren't sincere doesn't really dispute
If this is accurate, it makes it difficult to reconcile statements from Stardock senior staff that they are not trying to stop GotP from being made, with Stardock's settlement demand that P&F not make any such game for at least five years. I would very much like to hear whether Stardock acknowledges that they made those settlement demands, and if so, why they feel that those demands are proportionate to the amount of damage that they may have suffered from Paul&Fred's infringe
[quote who="tingkagol" reply="80" id="3707271"]To me this was just all bad timing. The timing of the Ghosts announcement falling so close to SCO's closed beta remains questionable. It isn't a stretch to think that the fact that Brad has been giving them regular SCO updates wet their appetite and inspired them to move their asses and finally create the game they've been procrastinating to do for years.[/quote] The piece of data we don't have is exactly how much of the timing for GotP w
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="76" id="3707196"]Where in the hell was FRED and PAUL in 2005 promoting the game? Where were they in 2009? 2011?[/quote] In 2005, they were working at their company, Toys For Bob , which had just been bought by Activision. In 2006, they launched a petition to convince Activision to let them make a sequel to Star Control II . Ac
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="75" id="3707188"]Oh, I don't get an opinion?[/quote] Of course you do. But to publicly accuse someone of acting in bad faith, it's pretty important to have some solid facts to back the accusation up. To me, Paul not publishing his GotP ideas does not suffice to prove that he never intended to make the game.
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="71" id="3707063"]I'm not convinced there's even going to BE a GotP. It's been 25 years, you might think they might have found some time in the last 25 years to doodle at least an idea or two about a possible next game on a napkin. But no, there's nothing at all, they have literally not started a single thing for a sequel/new game, and yet chose to jump in with their threats and lawsuits right as SCO's hype was starting to get to decent levels (and have managed t
[quote who="Lone_Utwig" reply="69" id="3706989"]It is strange that there has been 0 info on GoP game since the announcement. Are F&P developing anything at all?[/quote] Unlike Stardock, which has a bunch of hired developers, my understanding is that F&P aren't making GotP with their company (Toys for Bob); it's just the two of them to start with. So if the lawsuit is tying up some or all of their time, it's going to have a greater impact on their schedule than it does on
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="67" id="3706779"]But we cannot take the chance that our hard work is going to be either delegitimized or sabotaged via a DMCA because PF think that they have some right to some element in our game.[/quote] So, I believe you, but this does put a new spin on one of the Q&A answers above: [quote]Our complaint isn't about the distribution of the classic DOS games. It is about their trademark infringements.[/quote] It seems to me that t
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="58" id="3706577"]Even if they made 100% of the licensed content it would only make them the creators of the licensed content that went into Star Control. Not Star Control itself.[/quote] That's an interesting argument, and I think it's the first time I've heard it articulated this way. If I understand it correctly, you're splitting the product identity of "Star Control" from the identity of the game that most people think of when they talk about "Star
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="54" id="3706483"]From a consensus point of view, I suspect most people at this point do believe they “created” Star Control. That doesn’t make it a fact and legally they absolutely didn’t.[/quote] I think you forgot the "IANAL". ;-) But I do find that an interesting statement, and I'd like to toss up a variant to compare: "Legally, P&F absolutely didn't create Star Control" (which I think is the essenc
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="49" id="3706437"]Actually, they called it a true sequel in their original post. "This is a passion project for us and we have committed to dedicating some of our own time to creating a true sequel." And we know of one example where they contacted a news site : "Here's the statement of Fred and Bob, which raise
[quote who="Jafo" reply="45" id="3706426"]For 'really not helpful' insert 'libel'.[/quote] Just so I can form my own opinion, can you point me to the allegedly libelous statements? :-)
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="43" id="3706419"]Stardock wouldn't be making an issue of it except for PF now trying to associate themselves with Star Control to compete with it.[/quote] And the trademark certainly gives you the right to make an issue of it. My point is that in the statement "From the creators of Star Control", I think your argument should be focused on the words "Star Control", not "creators". To the best of my understanding, their use of "creators" is irrele
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="40" id="3706415"]Very little is "new" when it comes to storytelling or games, it's all been done before. We are not "creators", or even "designers"... the most accurate term would be "composer".[/quote] You're right, in that most new creative works are built on things that come before. But if that argument were taken to its logical extreme, we couldn't have any copyrights, because nothing is really new. But copyright law does recognize
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="35" id="3706399"]Star Control is a spectacularly designed game. But that's not the same as being THE creators of it. [...] If Fred did all the programming and Paul did virtually all the rest then I think they'd have a much better claim on the phrase "THE creators".[/quote] I think this may be stretching the argument a bit further than it really should be. Colloquially, at least to me, I don't think that "Creator" requires that someone had no hel
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="28" id="3706308"]The Ur-Quan universe based games have an extra obstacle: The open-source license allowing fans to do whatever they want provided it is non-commercial.[/quote] That's a good point, and one I hadn't considered. Stardock might still be potentially vulnerable, if that art was ever used in a way that could be argued provided a commercial benefit. For example, if such ship designs or images were posted in a place or manner that promot
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="26" id="3706295"]Precisely. And the idea that P&F were demanding that you remove any fan designed ships that they didn't like (i.e. looked or were anything like anything from SC1/SC2) is complete nonsense.[/quote] That feels a bit overstated to me. If people created images of something that is identifiably the USS Enterprise, or the Millennium Falcon, it's at least plausible that the respective copyright holders could try to demand that they be
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="23" id="3706283"]You should say "from a non-lawyer standpoint".[/quote] Note the "IANAL" earlier in the post, and the "I think..." preface to label it as a personal opinion. I didn't feel the need to repeat the IANAL, but I'll put another one in just to be safe. :-)
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="20" id="3706264"]In response, they demanded we not use the term "Super-Melee" and demanded that we police the Star Control community to remove any fan made ships they didn't like. They demanded we delete fan art people had posted on our forums or on Steam. They insisted that we remove the little homage in the background of one the alien scenes. And they made these demands while they were publicly promoting their game as a direct sequel to Star Control,
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="232" id="3706094"]It's the timing I find suspicious.[/quote] Perhaps I'm more easygoing than most, but that's not enough for me to infer that they were actually intending to damage Stardock, at least without hearing their side of why the timing worked out that way. They'd been wanting to make this sequel for a very long time (and their fans have very much wanted them to), so I can certainly understand why they would not want to sit on the news for
[quote who="NightShadowPT" reply="230" id="3706089"]What they can do, is call it "Ghosts of the Precursors" with a sticker saying "from the creators of Star Control I and II", or if you want to be picky, "from the producers of Star Control I and II".[/quote] I would like to say they can do this, but I'm not at all sure this would be legal without Stardock's permission. If they and Stardock could come to an amicable agreement, I think it would be great, but given the current clim
[quote who="Bob Stephon" reply="227" id="3706050"]It seems to me that Stardock has been bending over backwards for Fred and Paul and once Stardock did all the legwork and carved out a market for StarControl they began to regret not picking up the IP.[/quote] I think this could use a point of clarification, because "the IP" has more than one piece. It's currently looking like Stardock has a pretty solid claim on the trademark to "Star Control", but P&F have a pretty strong cl
