[quote who="Jafo" reply="101" id="3739905"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 100 P&F must have been so stupid to sign a contract that would effectively bind their IP with the publisher forever- No. A contract could be made null and void via a breach by either party....eg...were it to be excl
[quote who="Jafo" reply="96" id="3739873"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 95 I haven't heard this angle before. If this is true, then the 1988 agreement is effectively active forever. It would also take the wind out of the sails for pretty much everything you appear to be concerned
[quote who="Prof_Hari_Seldon" reply="92" id="3739867"] [quote who="tingkagol"] I believe a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed at that point.[/quote] No. P&F burned all classic game distribution bridges, even the one they already had with GOG that had nothing to do with Stardock: <a href="https:
Hello all. [Quote]SC1 and SC2 were sold on GOG in 2011 before Stardock got the trademark in 2013. P&F say that they had a direct agreement with GOG to sell, not Stardock, and therefore Stardock should not have sold on Steam . Well fine, what's the problem with getting a "mutually beneficial" agreement with Stardock too? Stardock was already paying royalties for what they were selling. P&F did the oppos
[quote who="Prof_Hari_Seldon" reply="84" id="3739842"] tingkagol, P&F called in lawyers, started a PR campaign, DMCAed, and went copyright crazy first (I already mentioned overreaching copyright examples from the Stardock Q&A of P&F requesting policing community fanart and asking the ship designer (no ship designer was in SC2 so HOW do they justify?) be rem
Hi all! [quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="77" id="3739663"] Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon, reply 76 Note: whether P&F actually said "direct sequel" or "true sequel" I don't really care. It was an unfortunate typo that P&F corrected, then they showed good faith about the trademark going forward.
[quote who="shayvaan" reply="639" id="3721810"] Names cannot be copyrighted, only trademarked, so how does this show an interest in copyright? [/quote] [quote who="Frogboy" reply="602" id="3721350"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 598 Well now that Stardock has recently supposedly "re
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="624" id="3721559"] Quoting zwabbit, reply 623 Quite point of clarification for my curiosity, when you say "they then knock down." Which "they" are you referring to? Paul and Fred. Their counter-claim essentially posits that Stardock believes it owns their copy
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="602" id="3721350"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 598 Well now that Stardock has recently supposedly "registered" trademarks* for the classic aliens (Chenjesu, Arilou, etc) your theory will no longer apply. P&F's copyrights to the aliens are now at the mercy of those trademarks in question. How co
Hmm.. now that you bring it up, where is this "free license to the trademarks" that's being offered by Stardock? I know Frogboy mentioned the same here in this forum, but is it included in the settlement talks or formally mentioned to the other party in any way? Or is this just forum talk? The existing SC trademark will definitely have a stake once GotP will move forward, or even if it gets renamed and not refer to the SC mark at all. I won't be surprised if Stardock will still impose
[quote who="Starkillr" reply="597" id="3721302"]If they just called it Ghosts of the Precursors w/o the Star Control name, pretty sure they'd be free and clear. [/quote] Well now that Stardock has recently supposedly "registered" trademarks* for the classic aliens (Chenjesu, Arilou, etc) your theory will no longer apply. P&F's copyrights to the aliens are now at the mercy of those trademarks in question. How convenient. ^__^ *I haven't checked if
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="560" id="3718548"] Super-short version of how things could have gone down: Stardock: Please agree not to promote your game as a sequel to Star Control. Paul and Fred: Ok. No lawsuit, no need for multi-millionaires to ask fans to fund their "defense" that is, in essence, a demand that they can promote their game as the "direct" or "true" sequel to Star Control. [/quote] I'm sorry, but given Stardock
...aaand P&F are now asking for money from fans. Seems like Stardock's marathon strategy is working. They need USD 2M. That's. A. Lot. For lawyer fees. IMO, that money should be used to develop the game, not feed the lawyers. It's so sad to see this dispute being won by whichever party has the financial clout.
I really really really wish there isn't any hand holding in this game. The arrow at the edge of the screen when navigating to the destination planet does not bode well for me (at least). In SC2, I like the mechanic that you had to search through all the planets in a star system if you forgot what planet number you were supposed to visit. It seemed tedious, but it lets players discover that it is in fact nice visiting planet to planet especially when you stumble upon rub
I just noticed there aren't any RUs recovered after the Earthling Cruiser(?) destroyed the Scryve scout. Can't you gain RUs from fighting anymore? Also, I don't mind the landing mini game, but I wish you could land anywhere on the planet instead of the fixed spot the game assigns automatically. I just now realized what bothered me with the Tywom alien model and why it feels too familiar and Pixar-y. The eyeballs. I think it would be better lore-wise if it had unconventional le
Damn. The game looks really good. I especially love the slow pace while navigating a star system. It's so nostalgic and heavily reminiscent of SC2. I'm excited hear more of Riku's music as well. Good work Stardock!
[quote who="Elestan" reply="418" id="3714279"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 416 Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark. So my current theory is that ther
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="415" id="3714266"]In short, as a lay person, when you combine Paul’s 2013 confirmation that the publishing rights were active with the fact the games were being sold we had no reason to think the license had expired. [/quote] Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark. It's akin to Stardock's support for the "d
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="411" id="3714218"] Quoting tingkagol, reply 405 I understand their anger after Stardock refused to budge on the sale of the games on Steam, especially since they've already went through the same dispute with GoG and Atari in 2011 and showed Stardock the emails.
Hmm... I've been wondering myself how this dispute could have been avoided. My recap: P&F announce GotP as the direct sequel to SC2. Stardock supports the announcement. Stardock's refusal to withdraw the classic games from Steam angers P&F. (Stardock believes the 1988 agreement is still active.) P&F lashes out. Sends DMCA takedown notices for the games on Steam, hires a PR firm to attack Frogboy and co, publishes blog posts about the disp
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="354" id="3714016"] Quoting Elestan, reply 343 But the major sticking point comes in because there is a basic disagreement over exactly what is controlled by copyright, and what is controlled by trademark. The only disagreement on that has you, Lakstoties and the
[quote who="Taslios" reply="351" id="3714010"] Paul and Fred can claim the Races and lore and story they have developed... but they cannot use it without the associated Trademarks... The best and clearest case on that is if you look at Stan Lee and his career for both Marvel and DC... he created MULTIPLE characters that are part of the DC universe.... yet he also was the primary driver for Marvel... Guess who cannot
Stardock Forums