[quote who="Elestan" reply="641" id="3712140"] Well, if Brad did the trademark license as proposed above (#636), Stardock could go after anyone who broke the CC license's non-commercial terms. And the UQM community would probably cheer it on. [/quote] You have not answered because you can't answer for UQM nor the UQM has someone to answer for. Did you read about Qt? [quote]Past and future The KDE Free Qt Foundation already played an important ro
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="644" id="3712144"] The second Spathi, by contrast, belongs to Stardock as we have the registered copyright for it. We could simply reproduce that Spathi without fear. Not sure we would though.[/quote] For the love of all that is sacred and holy in the universe! Please, don't use the second Spathi! Burn it with fire!
[quote who="Elestan" reply="639" id="3712135"] 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] Yeah, it still doesn't stop people from doing it. It's not like if one person does it he will immediately be jailed. Someone has to take action, be it the one who holds the copyright or the trademark. Cease and desist letters needs to
One point to make is that the same way Star Control can change hands later or even the remote possibility that Brad changes his mind. 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. For UQM to be really protected it should act more like a mod than a standalone game. I have seen several remakes in which the developers reverse engineered the code of a game and for
Regarding mods this is probably still the same. There are several cases when a Mod even turned out to be a game later like Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Dota and so on. If you look at Rimworld the creator even incorporate the best mods (with the author consent) into the base game.
[quote who="Elestan" reply="627" id="3712076"] So I would like to figure out, to the extent one can without paying thousands of dollars in legal fees, whether these trademarks could possibly be used against the UQM project [/quote] This is a game forum dude. Here: http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php https://www.jdunderground.com/ip/ <
[quote who="Jafo" reply="612" id="3712028"] "looking for more insight" ....have you thought about going to school? ... [/quote] Or he can always hire a lawyer =) Even after hiring one he probably won't get an straight answer however.
[quote who="Elestan" reply="569" id="3711846"]Sure, they could have...but they didn't, which (it seems to me) means that they either: Didn't think they had any trademark claim on the project's use of any unregistered marks from SC2, or Didn't think that the project's use of those marks mattered, or Just didn't care about an old franchise that hadn't sold any games in years. </
[quote who="SirPrimalform" reply="565" id="3711842"]Not exclusively. The contents of a book are copyright, not trademark. I see no difference between that and the words in a game, but perhaps the law does?[/quote] Words as in names.
[quote who="Elestan" reply="564" id="3711841"]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 contact or association with Accolade or its successors.[/quote] Yet Atari could have sent a cease and desist letter to UQM or sue them. As many other d
[quote who="Elestan" reply="527" id="3711755"] 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] 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. But of course
[quote who="Elestan" reply="522" id="3711747"] However, Stardock has since filed for a fresh trademark on "Star Control". To my understanding (and Brad can certainly correct me if I'm wrong), this means that even if the old "Star Control" trademark got cancelled, Stardock could still release their new game as "Star Control: Origins", and keep others from making games called "Star Control" in the future. [/quote] I think it depends, if P&F get the old trademark canc
[quote who="Elestan" reply="520" id="3711741"] I understand that sentiment, as I shared a similar view in this thread a couple months ago [/quote] This link isn't working. 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? EDIT 2: The link not working as Elestan said is reply #176, the first one from page 8 https://forums.starcontrol
I'm not a lawyer nor have any knowledge about law, even more so USA law but this is the impression I got from reading up until now. If P&F have this contract which says the (EDIT: trademark or any copyright sold by atari to stardock) reverted back to them since 2001 and give them control over what Stardock bought . Then how could this be possible: 1. Why n
That's the problem, we are here to discuss our opinions with the benefit of frogboy giving us his own opinion, facts or some understanding about the law being applied. We also have lawyers that refrain from saying too much because they themselves are in no position to do so. It's like asking a developer how to fix a specific piece of code without providing the said code. You can make assumptions and give advice but they may as well be nullified depending on how the actual code was mad
[quote who="Elestan" reply="504" id="3711646"] Legal citations are needed when you're writing a legal brief or a scholarly article, but that level of rigor is not necessary in casual discussion. [/quote] Just say that you can't do it man, no need to talk pretty every single time someone asks you to do it. You are the one pretending to be a lawyer yet can't be bothered to offer a base to any of your claims.
I'm glad I kept reading this thread up until now. Frogboy last post is very informative and clears a lot of confusion I had over the subject. I think people are too focused on trying to defend a point that they forget to see the big picture. Getting one phrase or one part of the whole and hammering on it as if this one point being reasonable or not is what defines everything else. But every single part of it has a purpose and it only makes sense if you p
[quote who="Timmaigh" reply="433" id="3710558"]So lets say i said i dont believe that Star Control mark is worth the price. It was more complicated than that but whatever. Brad actually took his time to respond to my posts, but instead of referencing any such study he has at his disposal, which would actually answer all my questions and doubts etc, chooses to address them with some vague analogies. Does not seem logical to me.[/quote] If you want generic st
[quote who="Jafo" reply="428" id="3710406"] When the CEO of computer game company says a product's 'name' or 'trademark' is worth the price he paid he's either going to be right or wrong. If said CEO is that of a successful computer game company the chances are that only one option is correct - that he is in fact right. People can have an opinion contrary, however actual results/past history should speak for themselves. Incidentally, Stardock was the first of
From what I read in rockpapershotgun : Ford and Reiche’s counterclaim seems to be pushing to take control of Star Control again. They claim that, owing to various expiration and termination clauses in their agreements with Accolade, “all rights to Star Control, Star Control II, an
The timing alone was what made me suspicious of P&F, why allow SCO to be developed for 4 years? It doesn't make any sense to me. They shouldn't have allowed Atari to sell it in the first place, they are acting like 'copyright trolls' just waiting for the perfect moment to strike.
[quote who="Kermamorjens" reply="55" id="3697587"] Or maybe just vent. [/quote] My two cents on this is that when you make it public and not anonymous then it's not venting, it's a cry for help.. a known move to make the public change the opinion of the other party so it goes your way.
