[quote who="Frogboy" reply="646" id="3721998"] I've yet to see a Paul and Fred defender who doesn't resort to emotional appeals or magical interpretations of the law. [/quote] I'd hardly say "I don't approve of Stardock breaking their word" is an emotional appeal. Stardock gave their word to the audience, not just P&F. Nothing P&F does can justify going back on the word given to us, the audience. I'd make an exception if there was genuinely some legal requirement to
[quote who="Astrobia" reply="637" id="3721780"] Quoting GMOrz, reply 636 Could you point to other examples of the trademark holder being obliged to change their product, without violating the gag order? What do you mean? Those two things aren't related. [/quote] When I've
Stardock[quote who="Jafo" reply="631" id="3721638"] Quoting GMOrz, reply 630 I'm just curious if there's any examples where the trademark holder was forced to market / develop things differently based on trademark infringement, Pretty much any and every instance. It's actually what
[quote who="eride" reply="619" id="3721503"] Can you provide a citation for your belief, GMOrz? [/quote] You've seriously misread my posts if you think I'm trying to assert facts there - my belief has no basis other than a vague gestalt of trademark law I've absorbed from pop culture, and I'm quite open to being shown I'm wrong! I'm just curious if there's any examples where the trademark holder was forced to market / develop things differently based on tradema
[quote] drew a visible, prominent connection between the lore and the trademark. The moment they did this, Stardock was legally obliged to get them to back off to protect their ownership of the mark. [/quote] Huuuh, I'm not familiar with that legal theory. Could you offer some sort of citation? I would have thought the original games already created a connection between the lore and the trademark.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="615" id="3721487"] This only became necessary because Paul and Fred and their fans attempted to try to create the impression that Star Control: Origins has no relationship to the classic Star Control games. [/quote] You say "create the impression" as though the original design for SC:O (pre-Arilou) had any relationship to the classic Star Control games. I'm not sure what connection you're seeing here? Obviously they both bear the name "Star
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="611" id="3721423"] Quoting GMOrz, reply 609 By your reading, what rights to the names are granted? There's clearly a section discussing the names (as I quoted), and it assigns *some* sort of rights to Reiche. In my nonlawyer opinion, sinc
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="605" id="3721387"] @GMOrz: So are you saying that that agreement is live or expired? There is no such thing as Schrödinger's contract. [/quote] I'm not sure what you're referring to regarding expiration. Are you saying it was a limited-time assignment of rights that has since expired?
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="604" id="3721385"] You should follow your own advice and read the entire paragraph. [/quote] By your reading, what rights to the names are granted? There's clearly a section discussing the names (as I quoted), and it assigns *some* sort of rights to Reiche.
[quote who="zwabbit" reply="599" id="3721313"] I read the contracts linked in this thread. I saw no clauses that specifically disassociated the alien names from the Star Control trademark. [/quote] You should really read more carefully, then: p. 62: The Reiche Intellectual Property shall include proprietary rights in and to any source code, names (of starships and alien races) , characters, plot lines, setting, terminology unique to the Star Control
Stardock is trying to impose a licensing requirement where previously none was required. Paul and Fred published a game titled "The Ur-Quan Masters", using all of the classic race names (Arilou, Orz, Pkunk, etc.). This was all done without any license from Accolade/Atari. Given that the contracts refer to the race names as "Reiche's Intellectual Property", it seems clear that this was intentional, not them flying under the radar. Stardock's interpretation of the contracts is a change
[quote who="pendrokar" reply="592" id="3720975"] If avoiding having the game called, at worst , Stardock's Star Control: Ghost of the Precursors is what really matters to them, then I hope they lose the court case. [/quote] Stardock is contesting the original copyrights and the alien races. The "worst case" for P&F is that they can't make another game at all. Seeing as they've been waiting 25
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="584" id="3718722"] Have you played through the campaign of Ashes? Star Control: Origins was begun first. [/quote] I haven't played it, so no clue how Ashes relates to SC:O. Are they set in the same universe?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="574" id="3718590"] We even have a prequel book already published on the backstory of the Lexites. [/quote] That seems to be a link to Dawn of the Singularity, which is set in the same universe as the Ashes of the Singularity game, not Star Control: Origins?
Thanks for the links. It still seems like absent the "evil villain" theory, P&F have no motive to do this because it would reveal them as blatant villains, get them blacklisted from the industry, and they'd get crushed in the legal aftermath.
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="535" id="3717952"] Minor? Do you really believe there would be no sales loss or negative press if SCO was unavailable for purchase for 2 weeks on the biggest digital distribution store during its launch period? [/quote] I follow a few news sites that hate the DMCA, so I would have expected to hear about abuses like this. Can you provide me links to situations where a frivolous DMCA claim forced a company to shutter sales for 2 week
[quote] It's genius really. Evil genius. But never the less, genius. [/quote] When you have to compare your opposition to a cartoon super-villain to justify your narrative, you should really think twice about whether the facts support your narrative. :) (BTW, It's Xanatos, not Xanadu. Spoiler alert: he ends up being one of the good guys in the end.)
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="528" id="3717929"] For the sake of argument, let's assume that. The same individual is also making claims of having copyrights in Star Control: Origins. Would you be outraged if they issued a DMCA take-down notice of Star Control: Origins on opening weekend or would you be justifying it even as we laid off 20+ people? [/quote] I'm not clear why filing a valid DMCA take-down notice for their own games would lead one to fear a DMCA
[quote] By excluding it, P&F's ability to ever reuse the names and etc that were in the Star Control games was taken out of their hands. [/quote] The UQM project was allowed to continue without Atari/Accolade's permission. I'm also really unclear why you think the UQM project avoided the name "Star Control" if not for trademark reasons. I'm really unclear why they would avoid the "Star Control" name but not any of the race names, if it was commonly understood
[quote who="zwabbit" reply="491" id="3717745"] That's what trademark is for, and Stardock owns the trademark, not P&F, so P&F's copyright is worthless as far as preventing Stardock from reusing the names. [/quote] I'm not speaking to the legal status, but the original intent of the contract. In plain language, it pretty clearly gives the "intellectual property rights" to the names to Paul, and licenses them back at significant expense multiple times. Th
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="478" id="3716365"] Legally, Paul and Fred have no more legal standing to Star Control than any other contractor who worked on it for Accolade. Not to make too fine a point but Riku, for instance, has more copyrighted material in Star Control 2 that is relevant today than Paul or Fred. Let's face it, we game designers don't tend to end up with a lot of copyrights. [/quote] [quote] 7.1 Termination Upo
Disclaimer: I'm not an official Stardock representative. I'm sure someone will chime in if I get anything wrong :) [quote who="BionicDance" reply="490" id="3717623"] Regardless of the copyright/trademark squabbles, who has the actual legal ability to make a game using the original lore? [/quote] I believe both sides are currently claiming the right to do this, so "answer unclear, consult the courts"? [quote] <ul
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="467" id="3714907"] Stardock hasn't "broadened" its trademark. Stardock nor anyone else, can broaden what a trademark is. [/quote] Apologies if I was unclear: Stardock's interpretation of what is covered by the "Star Control" mark is broader than than what the community previously interpreted Trademark law to cover. Thus, "broadened". [quote] It is not an "interpretation" of trademark law
[quote who="Astrobia" reply="452" id="3714672"] Welcome to the internet. Congratulations on missing the numerous great debates of a last 5 years. [/quote] I've been on the internet a lot longer than 5 years. I've had numerous debates, and learned all sorts of interesting things from them. I really don't get what compels you to assume bad faith in someone that is, to me, pretty clearly just trying to find understanding. The trademark and copyright for SC1/2 used t
StarControl Forums
Stardock.net Forums