Well I don't have anything to add that hasn't already been said, and if I were to say it I would just be asked to leave. So I'll leave with this instead: Kavik_Kang, I will miss your bizarre ramblings. I fear you've been up on that high horse (or is it a giraffe these days?) so long that you've forgotten how to walk.
Wow ok, I've just seen P&F's latest blog post and I'm very much interested in hearing Stardock's side. Please tell me their interpretation of the settlement terms isn't correct, because some of the things you're apparently asking for are completely ridiculous.
[quote who="bleybourne" reply="232" id="3706094"] Both of those are shitty shitty reasons to do what they did, and it smacks of unprofessionalism. Then they pulled a DCMA for games that have been on sale since before Stardock even owned the IP, including SC3 which Paul and Fred had no part in building and absolutely no possible claim over. They knew the DCMA would be defeated (and it was) - it was all a tactic. [/quote] While I agree about the timing
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="218" id="3706005"] I'm not obtuse, I'm an engineer. [e digicons]:)[/e] Sorry if I'm misunderstanding. I've seen several of P&F's fans claim there's some sort of "fair use" here when, obviously, no, that's not what fair use is.[/quote] No, I was just correcting Takuma73, who was under the impression they'd actually named it Star Control. In that post I did concede that even describing
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="213" id="3705998"] SirPrimal seems to be implying that he would see no problem if Ghosts of the Precursors could even have on it "The Direct Sequel to Star Control" right on the box and claim that it is ok. It is simply describing itself as the direct sequel. Except... of course you can't do that. That creates a world of consumer confusion. [/quote] Ok, now I feel like you're being willfully obtuse. I wa
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="210" id="3705995"] What is the name of their game? Based solely on what they tweeted. [/quote] In your careful selection they do not mention the name of the game at all. But please, show me a tweet where they do refer to their game as Star Control: GotP.
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="206" id="3705991"] Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 201 Ghosts of the Precursors is and has always been its name. Fred and Paul haven't been calling it Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors or anything else with Star Control in the name. What they have been doing is describing</
[quote who="Nahtegood11" reply="202" id="3705966"] This is just speculation, honestly. But imagining Star Control 3 being a crappy game just because of its creators' jealousy/anger/greediness is not a comforting thought. [/quote] Star Control 3 already exists, wasn't made by F&P and wasn't generally well received. That said, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, their company has been owned by Activision for a long time. It's possible they have been
[quote who="Takuma73" reply="200" id="3705963"] Also, I know that they might want to keep "Star Control" in the name for series recognition, but personally I feel like "The Ghosts of the Precursors" would be just fine as a name by itself, and even if it isn't, it wouldn't be hard for them to create another name. [/quote] Ghosts of the Precursors is and has always been its name. Fred and Paul haven't been calling it Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors or
[quote who="Elestan" reply="187" id="3705844"]and explicitly acknowledge Stardock's trademark on "Star Control". [/quote] It's definitely said something like that since the first hints of disagreement in December, at least I'm fairly certain of it. EDIT: http://web.archive.org/web/20171201174854/https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/ On the Wayback Ma
[quote who="Elestan" reply="176" id="3705715"] Note the careful wording in PR's emails: "I've talked with Fred and I am afraid at this time we aren't interested in the Star Control assets you purchased from Atari." Stardock interpreted his lack of objection during this email thread as tacit acknowledgement of their claims. But PR never actually conceded that he agreed that Atari owned the copyright and distribution rights Stardock believed it paid for. I
[quote who="Kermamorjens" reply="173" id="3705689"]I worry that the atmosphere is now too toxic for a friendly agreement and peaceful developing of the two games. How do you get back from here to when everyone wanted to cooperate? Rewind time maybe? [/quote] Yes, it's certainly worrying for any fan of the series. The best thing we can do is try not to be polarised, show F&P and Stardock that we would love to see everything work out for both parties. Perhaps as a part
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="170" id="3705644"] This is covered in the update here: https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred [/quote] That doesn't seem to cover the publishing rights issue though. I get that you are unhappy with what you see as trademark infringement in their promotion
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="167" id="3705616"] There isn't nearly as much disagreement as these suits seem to imply. [/quote] I really hope so. I would love if this was cleared up sooner rather than later. Did you see the emails that F&P posted on their blog today? I don't understand how Atari could concede they didn't have publishing rights and then for you to apparently buy publishing rights from them a couple of years later. Given that they overestimat
[quote who="joel_ds" reply="147" id="3705435"] Stardock decided not to use or reboot the SC2 universe (and they could have done so). That's quite debatable. Having read both complaints and the original contract, Fred and Paul's contention that the Accolade license is long-expired and Stardock has no rights to SC1/2 or anything within them is pretty strong. [/quote] If I understood correctly, the SC1/
[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="128" id="3705275"] So if i understand this correct atari sold everything, but the code for star control 1, and 2. Paul, and fred changed their minds, and wanted the code for star control 3. Star control 1, and 2 were under gnu, so technically no one owns it. Stardock said no, since they own it, and all. Brad read this, and decided to talk to paul. [/quote] While there's a lot we don't know, from the stuff we do know it's pretty sa
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="124" id="3705256"]... [/quote] Well according to the copyright notices on the discs etc., they did own it. I don't believe they were employees of Accolade, but developers in their own right who simply had a contract with Accolade and according to them the contract had specific terms that caused all remaining rights to revert to them (i.e. the bits of SC3 that they didn't already own and the publishing rights). My understanding is that the only thing
Stardock.net Forums