That pertains to the cause/effect of a DMCA process and has no bearing on the legal action itself.

Also...anyone can put a '(c)' on a product box without actually OWNING the '(c)'.  I strongly expect that printing process/result was just 'one of those things' that no-one cared to correct formally.

If anyone needs to 'wake up' I'd [still] suggest that people wait till post-court-case.  Second-guessing such is a waste of effort and utterly meaningless in the Real World [tm] ...

Large game publishers like Accolade in 1992 would certainly not allow anyone to slap a (c) copyright on a game that they published. Accolade had to approve the discs, box art, etc. The game discs and boxes were not printed in Fred's garage.

The e-mail thread with Atari is further evidence of Fred and Paul's ownership, in addition to the source code and everything else.

And in any case, calling them "contractors on the classic DOS game" is disingenuous, misleading and an attempt to justify an unfair attack on them.

You're wasting your time. This forum is mostly full of people who are Stardock fans first and foremost. They have already decided that Stardock can do no wrong.

Personally, I was looking forward to Origins and whatever P&F would come up with, but Stardock's actions have poisoned the waters so I have yet to (and may never) buy Origins.

It's a pity, I was pretty neutral when the dispute started, not being a fan of Star Control from back in the day buy rather from playing UQM a couple of years ago. 

They had already said this, it's the same point as their previous post. How does it further anything?

ozdon81, why does it matter if P&F have the copyright to SC2?  Copyright protects source code and art.  SCO has it's OWN source code and art.  Trademark protects names, like McDonalds (company) or Big Mac (burger).  Stardock owns the Star Control trademark because Atari made that cheap flash game called Star Control to extend the trademark, then Stardock bought the trademark.

SCO did not copy source code or art from SC2.  The ONLY grey area art-wise is hyperspace is similar.  You could either believe P&F's chart or Stardock's point-by-point rebuttal chart.  But if you want to ignore the spin and decide for yourself then you need to ignore the charts and look at the screenshots and see if you get confused which is from SC2 and which is from SCO.  If you don't get confused then the "look and feel" is not similar enough.

As to the aliens, Stardock can call the Precursors Precursors because P&F do not have the trademark to "Precursor" and it's too late for them to try to claim it now.  Stardock have used "Precursor" in GalCiv for years, not to mention other franchises using "Precursor" before and after P&F.

The only other infringement grey area is whether SCO is part of the multiverse with SC2, which might make the Precursors and the Observers in SCO the same as in SC2, which might infringe on the copyright.  I guess Stardock wishes that is the case, but they were smart to not actually say that in game and to make the Observers NOT look the same as the Arilou.

Well that's pretty simple, Stardock can continue not saying in game that SC2 is part of the SCO multiverse.

It's the same subject, but they elaborated on it to defend their position. Seems like a genuine attempt at discussion to me.

That's not how copyright works.

If it's an association issue, it's trademark.  Stardock owns the trademark free and clear.  The Star Control games exist within the Star Control multiverse because we say what is and isn't in the Star Control multiverse.  If we were to say that the Star Wars universe is in Star Control universe, that would be an issue because of the trademark (consumer confusion) not because of copyright.

If you can't put A and B next to each other and get a person to agree (or disagree) that one is a copy (substantially similar) of the other then it's not a copyright question.

Most of the mistaken arguments I've seen on this dispute is the association fallacy.  Trademark controls association. Not copyright.

Copyright does not grant P&F ownership over the "UQM" universe. It grants them control over distribution of the expression of the story that exists in SC1 and 2, and it also grants them a certain degree of control for "derivations" of the material in those two games. Ownership of the "universe" however requires the ability to control usage of things like names, which copyright does not grant. Trademark does, which means P&F do not have legal standing to even expand the UQM story if they wanted to without the consent of the Star Control trademark holder, which in this case is Stardock.

I believe that lore is covered by "script/screenplay", which is present in F&P's second copyright registration for SC2, which covers just that and audiovisual material. The source code was covered by their earlier copyright registration.

So many internet lawyers...

I'll refer to the fairly straight forward example I gave earlier.

If you can't put A and B next to each other and compare, then it's not a copyright discussion.