wibblenz

I like to watch (some) multiplayer games, I like to play single player (and sometimes cooperative) games. I don't like pure or primarily PvP games.

[quote who="Elestan" reply="446" id="3714646"] public forum [/quote] If there is only one thing I agree with Brad on, it's going to be that this is a private forum which the public can view and participate in, and Brad can do whatever he likes here*. You and I are free to judge from afar (e.g. Reddit, UQM forums), but participate at Stardock's sufferance. *As long as it's not illegal.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="315" id="3713888"] Well, to the first, that is the definition of trademark. If I can show a likelihood of confusion, I have a case. If someone saw a game with the Ur-Quan, Spathi, Orz is there a likelihood that they would think that game was associated with Star Control? [/quote] Confusion depends on use (in commerce) of a mark on (not in) the goods (computer games) being confused with your mark (the words "STAR CONTROL"), by my reading o

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="310" id="3713880"] The bottom line is that they can't develop a game related to Star Control without our permission. [/quote] You've yet to explain how Trademark law makes this so. This is more or less my only disagreement. [quote who="Frogboy" reply="310" id="3713880"] It's worthwhile noting that PF advocates, such as yourself, are never willing to specify what copyrights they hold. [/quote] I have no s

[quote who="Elestan" reply="309" id="3713877"] 1) P&F didn't bid on the trademark in the first place because they weren't in a position to immediately start using it. Trademarks have to be used, or they become invalid. If P&F had bought the trademark, they would have had to quit their jobs at Activision to start work on a new Star Control - which could have meant breaching their contracts - or else their $300k purchase would have become worthless before they eve

[quote who="OctateZero" reply="304" id="3713861"] Out of morbid curiosity… how do you understand the "StarControl™ © Accolade" on the title screen of the (terrible) 1991 Commodore 64 release of the first game? Paul and Fred had nothing to do with it, yet it includes representations of the original ships and races and Accolade seems to have been claiming copyright for themselves. Was this use addressed in their contract at the time? Or did it fall under Accola

[quote who="bleybourne" reply="302" id="3713859"] Stardock's position is based on their legal team who are, you know, lawyers. You're not a lawyer (I'm quite sure you would have mentioned that). [/quote] And P&F's position is based on their legal team who are also lawyers. Why should I believe one side over the other? Constantly shouting "Stop being interested guys!" is even less productive than armchair lawyering. It's obviously possible for non-lawyers to learn to unde

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="283" id="3713685"] UQM uses things that are associated with Stardock's trademark. That is grounds to consider the confusion question. A literal interpretation of Stardock's position would argue that, yes, confusion is possible, insomuch as the contents of UQM is suggestive of a direct link to the Star Control trademark. [/quote] I have considered the confusion question (§ 43 (15 U.S.C. § 1125), and it refers to use in commerce only. Use

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="268" id="3713619"] I’m not sure we are disagreeing. You trademark a word or symbol to connect things you want to associate with it. This way, consumers know those specific things originate from you. [/quote] But it doesn't preventing others putting their mark on an identical product, connecting their version to them. Can you provide an example of where trademark law (and only trademark law) has been used to protect an 'element'

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="265" id="3713615"] You trademark a word or symbol with the idea being that you are connecting elements to that word or symbol. That's the whole point. [/quote] I think this is a fundamental difference in our interpretation. Everything I read comes across as: You trademark a word or symbol with the idea being that you are connecting a product (e.g. a computer game) to its source (e.g. a company).

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="261" id="3713526"] This can be ... because elements of that product are strongly associated with your mark. [/quote] Can you suggest any further reading on this particular aspect? I can find plenty of information on the similarity of marks themselves causing confusion, but nothing on the association of the elements of a product with a mark doing the same. Confusion within the product seems to be the domain of copyright (and/or patent). When neithe

Since this is a Q&A after all: I can only find references to, and remedies for, use of a trademark itself. How can trademark law be used to protect something other than the mark? How can you satisfy fans with 'substantially dissimilar' aliens (see also Star Control 3)? I can only speak for myself, but I would like to see P&F's (or Greg's if you prefer) Orz, or no Orz.

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="684" id="3713415"] Are they foregoing the jury. I thought that the judge mediates the case, or calls,a mistrial. That it was the jury that made the decision to who was guilty, or innocent of something. [/quote] This is a civil case, so it will decide 'liability' rather than guilt or innocence. Any jury trial will not happen for another year - if at all. The settlement conference coming up on Monday will be between the parties and their

I think ship crafting could use some inspiration from other games: -Improve the 'current selected part' highlighting -Symmetry controls, both radial and mirror -Graphical offset tool -Graphical rotation tool -Ability to select a new 'root' part -Modifier keys (e.g. Ctrl+scroll wheel for part size)

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="247" id="3712822"] Quoting wibblenz, reply 245 While I don't agree with all of the assertions necessarily, I find this a good summary of my impression of Stardock's position. Also, interestingly, if the names are reversed and trademark swapped out for copyright (and a few other tweaks to make se

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="244" id="3712784"] What you refer to as "spilled milk" warrants continued action on Stardock's part on at least three accounts. 1) The possibility of confusion with any "sequel" to SC2 by P&F with Stardock's trademark was high enough that they really, really should have dealt with it before announcing the game. If they didn't want Stardock to have any claim to editorial oversight, they should have just accepted Brad's offer to buy the tradema

What makes Star Control...Star Control? This is quite difficult to answer in terms of generalities. Most of the things mentioned so far are what make Star Control a great game, and I agree with them, but they aren't what make it Star Control and not say Mass Effect. The one thing I have thought of so far is: Gathering resources - to create spaceships - to fight one-on-one top down action battles. The other things that make it great are either not unique, or extremely u

[quote who="Talonious" reply="59" id="3712637"] So I guess what I wonder about is where is the legal line drawn between just updating a race's look based on improved modern graphics and making them "substantially dissimilar" enough to be fair to use and still call by the race's name. [/quote] As far as I can tell, the law does not draw a line so much as it puts things in front of a Jury (which will have no knowledge of either game) and says "are these the same thing?".

[quote who="Elestan" reply="51" id="3712526"] Quoting zwabbit, reply 49 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 in

[quote who="Elestan" reply="40" id="3712468"] 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 right to make such claims for any uses that are permitted under the

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="38" id="3712463"] That is most definitely not their current position. Their position is that the purpose of UQM's activities does not constitute engaging in commerce and that those activities do not cause confusion. They are not turning a blind eye to anything, Brad made a very deliberate determination here, likely taking into full consideration the fact that there have been cases where distribution of free software counted as engaging in commerce. Stardock ha

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="19" id="3712360"] Stardock is using the definition by trademark law. The one defined by CC-NC is irrelevant in the context of trademark law and offers little to no actual protection in the context of a trademark dispute. It is entirely possible to release a work under CC-NC terms and still be engaged in commerce. The CC-NC license is more intended as a shield against someone else misusing the released work and biting the people that released it initially than

[quote who="Elestan" reply="15" id="3712310"] Quoting wibblenz, reply 14 Quoting Elestan, reply 13 I'm not sure Brad's interpretatio

[quote who="Elestan" reply="13" id="3712300"] 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] I have to assume that's due to the copyright Stardock claims, not the trademark - otherwise Brad would simultaneously be claiming UQM is and is not engaging in commerce!

[quote who="zwabbit" reply="9" id="3712292"] What Brad has made very, very clear is that Stardock does not consider UQM's usage of the names and etc to be engaging in commerce. [/quote] P&F have applied to register 'The Ur-Quan Masters' with the UQM project webpage forming part of their specimen. Therefore they and their lawyer are presenting that it is engaging in-commerce with respect to trademark law. Someone has to be wrong here, and I have no particular re