Except, even on a planet with harsh weather, it's still not very difficult to land? You won't survive very long on the surface, sure, but the actual landing part is pretty trivial. Staying within the green guide boxes isn't that difficult even on planets with harsh environments, at least for keyboard and mouse.
One additional remark. Some of the resources that spawn seem to do so underground so they're not actually accessible, or at least that is what I recall. This is ignoring the stuff in the rocks that you can blow up. I believe I ran into this situation while driving around on the moon.
Win 10 Education Edition, 1803. i7-4770 Geforce 1080 (not Ti) 16GB SCO is installed on a secondary spinning disk, not primary SSD. First run of the game crashed, second run succeeded. Second others' requests for an in-system mini-map. Not even knowing what direction the other planets, or not being able to zoom out to see more of the system, seems like an odd limitation. Also would like a mission log. The log doesn't need to tell me how to do things,
Interested. There is such a thing as a work/life balance. I think work is about to get shafted.
So is all this going to be covered solely in-game or does Stardock plan on releasing some additional media, whether it be in the form of trailers or (very) short stories or the like to flesh out their interpretation of the universe?
@Elestan You seem to be trying to overapply certain legal standards again, so I'm going to re-constrain the scope of this discussion. Whether something can be a trademark has no relevancy as to whether it can be protected by a trademark. The test to be a trademark is not the test that is used to determine infringement. If Stardock can demonstrate a relation between a name that would otherwise be un-trademarkable with a trademark they own, such
Elestan, again, you are not reading that document carefully enough. Note that while it states that solely names of characters cannot be trademarked (and a name of a character is not the same as the name of a fictional species), the document makes clear that this restriction applies when that name is only being used as a character name. If the name is used in a more expansionary way such that the name itself becomes an identifier for a brand or product, a name can simultaneously be used for a
Elestan, you are misreading the USPTO document. That document is only with respect to whether the name of a character can itself be directly trademarked. It says nothing about whether a character name can be associated with a granted trademark, you are making an inference that does not exist. In fact that entire article is under the section of "Use of Subject Matter as Trademark," which should tell you it's a question of whether a mark itself would be granted in the first place, it says nothi
And here is the problem with your position. You keep referring to "its legal assertions" as if Stardock's answers are somehow its own interpretation of the law, when most of the questions you keep asking are actually receiving what amounts to dictionary definitions of what the law is. For that matter, most of your questions devolve down to asking what the law is, not what the law determines in the case of Stardock's current legal suit. Your persistence in trying to treat Stardock's answers as
If they wanted to do it under a different brand name, then why the bloody hell did they associate GotP with the Star Control mark? Why are they trying to cancel Stardock's mark? Elestan, you have continuously tried to excuse P&F from the consequences of their tripping the legal landmine that is trademark infringement when they are owed no such consideration, especially in light of their continued legal action. You have also continued to try claiming some sort of "confusion" can exist betw
The intro text for SCO gives me this image in my head for how Star Control's director would be someone like Werner Locksmith from Planetes. Absolutely driven in his ambition of seeing humanity reach out further and further into the universe, whatever the cost in wealth, sweat, and blood.
Brad, Stardock, and whomever else feels like they can answer, is there a more detailed background on "Star Control" the organization that ostensibly sends us into the great unknown in SCO? In terms of its hierarchy, composition, authority, and whatnot? Also, are you guys ever going to drop that extra "t" in "There is not guide." on this page? :P
And none of those documents ever gave the trademark to P&F. The trademark remained the property of the publisher, not P&F. Control of the trademarks constitutes control over any future sequel, since the trademark owner is the only one with the right to release a game associated with the trademark. If P&F want to make another game in the Star Control franchise, they need the permission of the trademark owner, which at this point is Stardock. Their copyright is useless in this regar
Copyright != trademark. Brad was talking about copyright in that response. That was Brad's position at the time due to the extent of his understanding about who might have owned what. Since then, Brad has made several statements which indicate that understanding has evolved due to new information turned up in discovery, which he cannot publicly divulge and are likely to remain under seal even after a settlement is reached. And for that matter, the 1988 agreement NEVER granted P&F
Considering that P&F being in the legal wrong would allow Stardock to recover the costs plus penalties at the end of the litigation, the one that bungled their cost-benefit analysis is not Stardock. And considering that failure to go after P&F when they infringed upon the trademark weakens the mark, the cost of not going after them starts at however much money Stardock has already sunk into expanding the Star Control mark, and goes up from there. If you literally do not want to acknow
Wow. Just wow. This sort of blase attitude towards IP law is what got P&F into trouble in the first place, and likely why Stardock will probably be able to extract a pretty hefty settlement should they so wish. Stardock has no obligation to accommodate P&F. If they infringe upon Stardock's IP, they should have to deal with the full legal consequences. Their past association with the IP is irrelevant, since they have no ownership rights to the trademark today. The sentimentality of old
Why the blazes should Stardock yield? The IP is theirs, they paid for it. If P&F had wanted it, they should have taken Brad up on his offer. The moment P&F tried to pursue legal action against Stardock, the gloves come off and the lawyers take over. You are emotionally invested in getting some product of P&F and have that as the predominant driver for any decision you think Stardock should take from a legal perspective. Stardock is not obliged in the least to share that same drive
See, here's the thing about all these positions trying to be contrarian to Brad's position. It really doesn't matter if you disagree with him, or think you know better than him, or whatever. Your opinions don't factor into his or Stardock's legal strategy, and also don't factor into how the lawsuit will itself play out. You could be so utterly convinced of the rightness of your opinion, you can argue yourself blue in the face, and it won't matter. The courts are where this issue will ultimate
If the intent was to establish a presence in the market, that would be commerce. Are you saying that UQM's intent is to establish a presence in the market? Because if you are, then Stardock is obliged to move against it legally even without the current kerfuffle with P&F. Releasing a product for free does not constitute establishing a presence in the market, because if it did, literally everything with an open source release out on github, or sourceforge, or whatever would constitute enga
No, the Mozilla Foundation's situation is not analogous to UQM in the least. Mozilla provides Firefox for free, yes, but it engages in a whole host of activities alongside that that generates revenue. They have a revenue sharing agreement with Google over the use of Google search from Firefox's address/search bar, to name the big one. It is not the distribution of Firefox, but the other activities that Mozilla engages in that uses its distribution of Firefox as a base that constitutes engagem
Correct, open source projects can infringe upon trademarks. Correct, open source projects can engage in commerce. Correct, commerce does not automatically equate with commercial. Incorrect, UQM's activities does not necessarily constitute an exchange of services. By the way it is structured, it is designed to not receive anything in return for what it distributes, and its continued existence is contingent on this remaining true. If it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the courts th
Depends on the C&D. And being a fan project does not automatically mean it's not engaging in commerce, and also doesn't mean they can't have done something else that trips some other IP claim of the IP owner. It could be copyright, it could be trademark, the situation varies. In trademark situations, some IP owners are more forgiving in what they define as "engaging in commerce" than others. Some IP owners actually also respect the concept of fair use more than others. But in most situati
UQM isn't engaging in commerce, therefore the confusion issue doesn't come into play. There are two components to trademark law, confusion and engaging in commerce. Both need to be fulfilled for trademark infringement to kick in. If Stardock ever did find UQM to be engaged in commerce, then UQM is SOL and would be dead. Parody explicitly does not cause confusion. That's why it gets away with it. If something is not sufficiently parodic to avoid confusion, trademark law can still be us
Unless his interpretation is you trademark "only" a word or symbol, which is emphatically not the case. Trademarks have always involved more than just a singular word or symbol, they encompass the entire network of ideas and concepts that is built up around the word/symbol. There are limits, yes, but they are not so narrow as to be just the word or symbol. And Brad, shouldn't you be asleep by now? :P
Your interpretation does not preclude Brad's also being correct.