Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred

from StarControl Forums

Given the ongoing discussion of the legal dispute between Stardock and Paul Reiche and Fred Ford, designers of Star Control I and II, I wanted to take time to make Stardock's position clear and address inaccuracies that have been promoted.

As the need arises, I’ll continue to update this post with additional questions and answers.

Q: What are the issues in dispute?

A: On the eve of launch of the beta of Star Control: Origins in October 2017, a game Stardock has spent the past four years working on, Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford, the designers of Star Control II for Accolade 25 years ago announced a new game, Ghosts of the Precursors as a “direct” sequel to Star Control even going so far as to promote it as Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors.

They did this despite knowing Stardock had acquired the Star Control IP in 2013 and knowing before hand our announcement schedule. Their actions created confusion in the market as to the origin of Star Control games which is why we have trademark laws. 

When Stardock asked that they cease and desist marketing their game as a sequel to Star Control they refused and began demanding that the sale of the DOS games, which had been on sale continuously since before Stardock acquired the IP and for which they had been receiving royalties for during the entire time cease and began to disparage Stardock publicly in the press. 

Despite Stardock's best efforts to reach a private, mutually beneficial co-existence agreement, Paul and Fred responded with increasingly hostile, misleading public attacks and served Steam and GOG with DMCA take-down notices on all of the classic DOS games, including Star Control 3 which they had no involvement with all while continuing to promote their new game as the "true" sequel to Star Control.

In addition, Paul Reiche and Fred Ford also began to claim that various features of Star Control: Origins violated their copyrights such as the ship designer, user interface similarities and other elements that are not subject to copyright protection (you can’t copyright an idea and Star Control itself was inspired by many other games). They also began to demand special access to Star Control: Origins to inspect it and demanded the removal of the ship designer,

As a result of their broad interpretation of what they believe they have rights to combined with their willingness to instruct their lawyers to issue a DMCA take down notices, even on titles in which they had no involvement in, combined with their refusal to cease promoting their game as the sequel to Star Control, Stardock was forced to file a complaint over their continuing trademark infringement.

In retaliation, Reiche and Ford filed a countersuit seeking to cancel the Star Control trademark and for copyright infringement due to the sale of the classic Star Control games on GOG and Steam and are even suing GOG despite the fact that Reiche and Ford were the ones who claim to have helped get the classic Star Control games onto GOG.

Q: Why did Stardock file the initial lawsuit against Paul and Fred?

A: We had no choice after Paul and Fred filed DMCA claims against the distribution not only of Star Control 1 and 2 but also Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement.  The DMCA claims were reversed, but it was clear that our ability to create more experiences in the Star Control multiverse for fans would be at risk if they are allowed to continue to misrepresent their new game as being associated with Star Control without a license while simultaneously making broad, unsupportable claims of ownership on ideas and concepts that are present not just in Star Control games but games in general.  

Q: How did these unfortunate events come to pass?

A: Here is a timeline of the order of events:

  1. Stardock acquires the Star Control brand, copyright to Star Control 3, the license to use the Star Control classic characters, lore and the right to distribute the classic DOS games.  The DOS games are already available on GOG  with Atari listed as the publisher. (2013)
  2. Stardock discuss plans for the new Star Control.  They state that their employment by Activision prevents them from working on a new Star Coxntrol game and request that we not use the aliens from Star Control 2 but do not contest Stardock's right to do so.  (2013)
  4. Upon learning that Activision has blocked their ability to be involved and that Paul and Fred hope to one day to continue their stories, Stardock offers to transfer its rights to Star Control to them, thus uniting the Star Control brand with Paul and Fred's licensed IP.  (2013)
  6. Paul and Fred ask what Stardock acquired from Atari to which Stardock responds: The trademark, assets to Star Control 3 and the right to sell distribute, market and promote the original trilogy.
  8. Paul acknowledges Stardock's position and asks how much it cost.
  10. Paul and Fred politely decline the offer to acquire the Star Control IP. (2013)
  11. Stardock announces a reboot of Star Control and explicitly states that it will not include the characters from the classic series out of respect for Paul and Fred. (2013)
  12. Stardock spends the next 4 years and millions of dollars developing Star Control: Origins. (2013-2017)
  13. Stardock provides Paul and Fred regular updates on progress including video of pre-alpha footage, design notes, screenshots.  Relations are amicable and supportive. (2013-2017)
  15. Stardock updates Paul and Fred on Star Control: Origins release schedule and begins planning its 25th anniversary which will include releasing the classic games onto more channels.  Stardock asks if there would be any interest in having SC2 ships appear in Super-Melee. The games are submitted and approved by Steam in preparation (Summer 2017).
  17. Paul and Fred contact Stardock to inform them that they will be announcing a new game that will utilize the characters from their universe.  (Fall 2017)
  19. Stardock is both pleased and concerned about the timing of their plan, points out the licensing agreement would allow Stardock to use their IP (albeit at a higher royalty than Stardock was hoping for). Stardock asks that they coordinate these announcements together ensure there is no confusion and about the games appearing competitive. (Fall 2017)   
  21. Paul and Fred state they plan to make a sequel to Star Control II which would violate Stardock's trademark rights (you can't claim your product is a sequel to another company's product).  Paul and Fred also assert that Stardock does not have a license to their IP.
  22. In the email below Paul and Fred state that each party should work within its respective rights: Stardock having the Star Control trademarks and Paul and Fred owning all the IP rights to the works they created. Note that at this point, Paul and Fred recognized that owning the registration to the Star Control trademark also includes many common law trademarks. Hence "trademarks" plural.
  24. Stardock responds stating that as far as Stardock is aware, while Paul and Fred own the IP they created, Stardock does have an active licensing agreement that controls how that IP can and can't be used.  Stardock also reiterates that it has not used this license out of respect for Paul and Fred. (October 2017)
  26. Stardock states its concern at the idea of Paul and Fred representing their game as a "direct sequel", asks to schedule a call to discuss.  Note that at this point, Brad, like many, is under the impression that Paul and Fred essentially created Star Control on their own, a two-man team with licensed music was not uncommon thing back in 1992 (Stardock later re-evaluates that position after learning that the project had a large budget for 1990 and immense talent on it). (October 2017)
  27. Paul and Fred respond that they simply don't agree but provide no evidence as to why the licensing agreement would have expired. (October 2017)
  29. Stardock provides its reviewed legal position.  Stardock isn't using any IP from the classic games other than the right to market and sell them as they have been for several years.  (October 2017)
  30. Stardock points out that it has a license to the IP to use provided it pays a royalty of 10% (which is why Stardock has asked in the past for a new licensing agreement as 10% is too much for a cameo of a classic character). Stardock CEO, Brad Wardell suggests talking on the phone to iron things out. (October 2017).
  31. Email includes proposal:
  33. Paul and Fred refuse Stardock's proposal and begin to demand changes to Star Control: Origins.
  35. Paul and Fred, knowing the date Stardock was planning to announce the Fleet Battles beta, preemptively announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a direct sequel to Star Control II; use the Star Control II box (which is owned by Stardock) as the only art on the page for it; promote it to the media and to social media as the "true" sequel to Star Control.  (October)
  36. Despite having just stated that their efforts should be "separated" by each parties rights (Stardock with the trademarks) Paul and Fred almost immediately violate that understanding by using the Star Control trademarks throughout their announcement.
  38. The Star Control trademark is mentioned 4 times in the announcement, each with an (R) without mentioning Stardock leading a reasonable consumer to believe it is their mark (Ghosts of the Precursors is listed once). 
  39. Paul and Fred claim they "released" Star Control II on the same page that shows Star Control II with the Accolade mark misleading the relationship between Accolade and Paul and Fred (who, regardless of their tremendous work, were contracted by Accolade to create content that was then licensed into Accolade's product).
  40. The media follow-up by referring to it as "Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors". (October)
  41. Paul and Fred promote the idea that it's Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors and not its own game:
  43. The above is one example among dozens.
  44. Paul and Fred publicize coverage of their new game with each post using the Star Control mark but not a single one using the term "Ghosts of the Precursors".  Looking below, what's the name of their new game?
  46. Many posts and articles appear, endorsed by Paul and Fred that state that their new game is a "direct sequel" to Star Control.  Some refer to it as Star Control: Ghosts of the Precursors.
  47. Stardock moves forward on its 25th anniversary plans, release the beta of Star Control: Origins - Fleet Battles beta and relaunches the classic DOS games for the 25th anniversary on Steam. (October)
  48. Paul and Fred's attorney contacts Stardock's CEO.  This is the first time lawyers have been involved.  Lawyers take over. (October)
  49. Paul and Fred begin to demand that Stardock begin policing the Star Control community for fan art that they believe violates their rights (including members of this forum and on Steam). (October)
  50. Paul and Fred begin demanding the removal of features from Star Control: Origins including the ship designer (a feature that has been part of Stardock's games for over a decade). (October)
  51. Paul and Fred begin demanding insider builds of Star Control: Origins for inspection and begin insisting various broad features are their property despite having no right to do so. (October)
  52. Paul and Fred reject numerous attempts to create a co-existence agreement that would permit Ghosts of the Precursors to go forward independently.   (November)
  53. Paul and Fred insist they have the right to associate their game with Stardock's trademarks including referring to their game as the "true" sequel to Star Control. (November)
  54. Paul and Fred demand that the DOS games be removed from distribution while still providing no evidence to support their claim that the agreement had expired. (November)
  55. Paul and Fred begin to make public defamatory blog posts and tweets about Stardock. (December)
  56. Paul and Fred file DMCA notices against Steam and GOG not just for Star Control 1 and 2 but also Star Control 3 which Stardock holds the federally registered copyright for and that Paul and Fred had no involvement in. (December)
  57. Stardock's attorneys file a suit against Paul and Fred for trademark infringement and other causes of action. (December)
  58. Paul and Fred's attorney files a lawsuit against Stardock alleging copyright infringement and other causes of action. (February).
  59. Paul and Fred's PR firm releases a press release to the wire services accusing Stardock of "copyright theft" do press interviews attacking Stardock. (February)
  60. This post is initially made. (February)
  61. Paul and Fred post an email exchange they claim is between themselves and Atari, something they had not shown to Stardock and still have not provided to Stardock to evaluate. 
  62. Paul and Fred post what they claim is a Stardock settlement proposal in violation of federal rule 408. Stardock denies the accuracy. (March)
  63. Paul and Fred's PR firm targets Stardock CEO, Brad Wardell personally on Twitter for abuse with an inflammatory and completely inaccurate social media post. (March)
  65. Paul and Fred like a tweet that purports that these activities have cost Stardock up to 50% of potential sales and may lead to review bombing of the final game:  (March)
  67. To make clear that Stardock's concern is regarding the protection of its Star Control IP and not the sales of Star Control: Ur-Quan Masters, it decides that it will be suspend sales of the classic games until the dispute is resolved starting April 4. (March 2018).

Q: Don't Paul and Fred contend that the 1988 licensing agreement with Accolade has expired?

A: That is their position.  However, since the dispute began, Stardock has chosen to err on the side of caution and operate as if that is the case.   Stardock requested that GOG and Steam remove the games for sale pending a resolution.  The 1988 agreement, however, does not have anything to do with the Star Control trademarks were were always owned by Accolade and were assigned to Stardock.   

Stardock's ownership of the Star Control trademark is incontestable.  You can review the federal registration that dates back to the 1990s here.

Q: But isn't it true that Star Control: Origins has very similar gameplay to Star Control II? That you explore planets, travel through hyperspace to different star systems, meet with aliens? Couldn't their copyright of Star Control II mean that Star Control: Origins is too similar?

A: You cannot copyright an idea.  Putting aside that Star Control itself borrowed many ideas from many other games, copyright protects creative expression. Not game play.  

There are articles you can read that discuss this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_clone 

https://venturebeat.com/2013/03/16/defeating-mobile-game-clones-why-copyright-protection-is-not-enough/ 

https://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/11752/is-it-legally-possible-to-make-a-clone-of-the-game 

Obviously, anyone who has ever played Angry Birds or Candy Crunch already knows this.

That said, Star Control: Origins is not a clone of Star Control II.  The 25-year gap in game technology allows Star Control: Origins to deliver a much richer experience.  So while the core concepts remain true: You are the captain of a starship traveling through this part of the galaxy, meeting aliens, engaging in battles, exploring planets, the implementation is very different.

In short: Gameplay clones aren't illegal and even if it were illegal, Star Control: Origins is not a clone. 

 

Q: Why does Stardock claim that Paul and Fred were not the creators of Star Control?

A: Paul and Fred were the designers of Star Control I and II.  In the credits, on the box and elsewhere they had previously officially listed themselves as either developers or designers.  

While Stardock has no objection to “creators” in the casual sense, legally, and when trying to promote a product in commerce, they are not. Most of the Copyrighted material people think of as being important to Star Control was created and owned by others. 

For 25 years, Designer was their official designation.   

It is Stardock's opinion that they have begun to focus on referring to themselves as "creators" in their marketing in order to give the impression that Ghosts of the Precursors would have the the same creative core as Star Control II.   This is not the case.

What most people do not realize is Star Control II had, in essence, the dream Sci-Fi team as mentioned in this 25th anniversary tribute. The lead animator went on to lead the animation at Pixar and is the director of the Minions movies.  Many of the alien designs were created by the artist who went on to design Darth Maul and other Star Wars and Marvel movie characters.  Many of the most quoted lines came from seasoned Sci-Fi writers.  The engaging music was created by others.

We respect Paul and Fred’s crucial contributions as well as the rest of the talented team who worked on Star Control.  

Q: Who owns the Star Control trademark?

A: Stardock is the legal owner of the federally registered trademark for Star Control.  You can view it here. https://www.trademarkia.com/star-control-75095591.html 

Q: What does Stardock want out of this lawsuit?  

A:  Our ONLY goal is to protect our ability to tell more stories in the Star Control multiverse.  We remain fans of Paul and Fred and their contributions to Star Control.  However, given the confusion they’ve created in the market by promoting their new game as a “true sequel” to Star Control II combined with their abuse of the DMCA system to take down even Star Control games they had no involvement with, we are forced to act to prevent them from continuing to create confusion.   

Consider some of your favorite games or movies. Now imagine if someone instrumental to the development of that game or movie went on to claim to be making a sequel to that game or movie without the consent of the owners of that trademark? What would be the result?

Q: But doesn't Paul and Fred own all the in-game IP?

A: Paul and Fred own whatever IP they created.  What that is remains to be seen. Stardock does not claim to own any copyrighted material within Star Control II which is why the new Star Control: Origins is set in its own universe with its own characters and story.

However, as of April 2018, neither Paul or Fred had any rights to any of the art and much of the writing in Star Control II. However, even if they did, it would be irrelevant as Stardock isn't using any copyrighted material from Star Control 1, 2, or 3 in the new Star Control games.

On the trademark side, simply because you were contracted to work on a game does not grant you the right to make a new game and claim it is related regardless of what copyrights you think you may own (otherwise, you could argue that Unity and Epic could start to make sequels to other people's games).

For example, Paul Reiche is the President of an Activision studio.  Blizzard is another Activision studio.  Stardock was once contracted to develop a StarCraft expansion (StarCraft: Retribution). One can imagine the response Stardock would receive it it were to announce a new game as a "direct sequel" to StarCraft: Retribution.

By contrast, not only did Paul and Fred announce their new game as a "direct" and later "true" sequel to Star Control, they even used the Star Control II box, that was acquired by Stardock, to promote it.

As much as we respect Paul and Fred, the fact is, Paul Reiche was contracted as an independent contractor (not as a company) by Accolade to develop Star Control for Accolade.  This is a fairly routine method that developers get products made (Stardock's own Fences, WindowBlinds, Groupy, IconPackager, etc. were developed using the same method).

Q: Do these legal issues have any impact on Star Control: Origins?

A: UPDATE:

Apparently yes.  Despite Star Control: Origins having nothing to do with Reiche and Ford's games, they have filed DMCA take down notices to Steam and GOG to take down Star Control: Origins.  They claim (with not specificity) that they own copyrights in Star Control: Origins

Game sites don't make legal judgments on the merits.  They simply remove the content.  No one, to our knowledge, has ever tried to do this on a shipping game before.  

You can read our response here.

 

Q: Why did Stardock trademark Ur-Quan Masters, Super Melee, and other names from the original games? 

A: Once Paul and Fred began to challenge the validity of our intellectual property we were forced to take steps to solidify our common law rights. Specifically, Paul and Fred have worked to try to separate Stardock's Star Control mark from its association with the classic games.  

The reason companies were bidding to acquire the Star Control trademarks and willing to pay $300,000 for it was for the association with the classic series.  The trademarks, being in active use in connection with the beloved classic series, made it valuable.  

When Paul and Fred began to seek to cancel the Star Control mark and make public statements that Star Control: Origins isn't related to the classic series Stardock felt obligated to respond by reinforcing its intellectual property rights to the classic series.  

As background: Stardock always had the common law trademark to Ur-Quan Masters. It's the sub-title to Star Control II after all and was, by Paul and Fred's admission, available in commerce on GOG even before Stardock was involved. Super-Melee is literally a promoted feature from Star Control. The alien names are so strongly associated with Star Control that if you Google Star Control aliens they come up as the first entry.  

They have made it very clear that they believe that they have the right to associate their new game with Star Control on the basis that they have previously licensed content to Star Control games. They have no such right.

Q: Why did Stardock really need to trademark the Star Control 2 alien names?

A: Star Control fans expect new Star Control games to have the Spathi, Ur-Quan, Orz, etc.   We originally chose not to include them in Star Control: Origins in deference to Paul and Fred who asked us not to.  

However, in December 2017, Paul and Fred posted:

This creates confusion because Stardock alone owns the Star Control universe. That doesn’t mean it owns any lore or stories created by others. It just means that Stardock has the right to determine what is canon in the Star Control universe.  

The Star Control aliens are associated with Star Control. That doesn’t mean Stardock can use expressions and stories of those aliens without permission. But it does mean Stardock has the right to create its own stories and expressions for the Ur-Quan, Spathi, etc.

When Paul and Fred were contracted to develop Star Control I and Star Control II for Accolade, they were allowed to keep certain copyrights to the works they created. But all trademarks were explicitly defined as being owned by Accolade. 

Incidentally, their name was put into a diagram because they literally announced their game as a sequel to Star Control II.  They associated their new game with Star Control, not the other way around.

Q: Is Stardock trying to prevent Paul and Fred from making new games in their universe?

A: No.  Stardock wants them to create new games in the universe they created.  However, this needs to be handled in such a way that there is no confusion as to the relationship between Star Control and the works they licensed for Star Control II.

Q: If Stardock wants a new game from Paul and Fred, why did the settlement offer that Paul and Fred publicly posted that they claim came from Stardock demand that they "surrender" their IP?

A: It is regrettable that Paul and Fred chose to violate confidentiality and post, without context, a settlement offer.  Paul and Fred have been offered many settlement proposals with many different terms and are intended for negotiation by both parties to try to reach an amicable settlement.

Stardock paid over $300,000 for the Star acontrol IP which included the trademark and copyright to Star a Control 3. The Star Control brand is, in our view, far more valuable than any copyrighted material within a 25 year old DOS game. Source code and alien art. Nothing else, as far as we can discern, falls under copyright protection. You can’t copyright “lore” or timelines, or alien names, or game designs or UI.  

Thus, all we would gain would be the ability to have Ur-Quan that look just like the old Ur-Quan and space ships that look like the classic space ships. The greater value would be to make sure this kind of dispute didn’t happen again. But that value would still not overcome the damage they’ve caused in the market place due to the confusion on who owns Star Control and the ill will due to their PR company issuing false and misleading press releases and publicizing the dispute in a way to maximize ill will. Not to mention the considerable and rising legal costs.

None of this would prevent Paul and Fred from making a new game if that really is their desire. Stardock, in turn, would have been happy to license, free of charge, any IP they needed to make their new game.

Our respect for the work Paul and Fred did 25 years ago remains undiminished.  However, that respect does not give them the right to disrupt our product development at the 11th hour or misrepresent their new endeavors as the "true" sequel to our products.

Our dedication to bringing you a new Star Control game remains unchanged.  BETA 2 of Star Control: Origins is due in a few weeks.

For those interested in reading the details, our complete initial filing available online:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html

Stardock 25th anniversary post documenting the creation of Star Control:

https://www.stardock.com/games/article/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants  

 


Thank you for being fans of Star Control, and supporting our effort to make a great new game in the Star Control franchise.

And if you have questions that you’d like to see added to this post, feel free to reach out to me directly via Twitter at @kevinunangst

Kevin Unangst

Vice President, Marketing and Strategic Partnerships

Stardock Entertainment

1,790,250 views 728 replies
Reply #1 from StarControl Forums Top

I'm here wishing everything will turn out okay~
I just hope it is soon 

:(  This is good to NO one~

+1 Loading…
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top

All i want to know is, is Paul and Fred still continuing to create their new game i am not hearing a peep and i'm not seeing a word anywhere on the net.

I want to see that AND their progress.

If so, i can live with what happened the past months and will just keep a blind eye towards what happened. And continue to support both Stardock and Paul and Fred.

If P & F is not continuing their game with the entheusiasm that they always had, this whole deal will be a seriously bitter situation.

Is there a site i can go to, to get their updates ?

I Like the Stardock game so far BUT Paul and Fred must bring out their Star Control game as well, they MUST make the game ! !

Then, i hope this whole deal did not influence the Stardock team to deviate from the proven concept of this game, delibaretly changing things just to be different with the perhaps unintentional effect of making it less interesting and exciting. I know there will be some changes, i just hope the changes that will be made will complement the game rather than degrade it.

To get my support back on track and i know i would be speaking for the majority as from the first day i/we have read that a new Star Control will be made, i/we Need to know that both parties is going in full steam creating their seperate Star Control games respectively.

That is the ONLY solution for what has happened.

SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #3 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Hi UrQ,

If that's the ONLY solution that will work for you, then you had better prepare to be disappointed. P&F are clearly hostile to Stardock doing anything connected to Star Control, so if they win, the best option is that Stardock will undoubtedly still release Origins, just purge it of references to Star Control. 

And while Stardock was initially willing to cooperate and probably gave P&F much more slack than was legally advisable, P&F's actions have made it extremely difficult for Stardock to allow them to continue in the Star Control universe - unless the terms are specifically spelled out as part of a settlement agreement. And while settlement agreements are common in these types of cases, and Stardock's public statements have been (wisely) measured and thus would allow for a settlement, P&F has been much more hostile and if they are the types of clients whose rhetoric matches their actual intentions (as opposed to hostile rhetoric as a tactical decision) then they probably aren't going to stop short of full defeat. And in that case, they won't have any rights to use Star Control and probably won't be willing to change the name and forge forward.

It is a sad situation. And I have much goodwill towards both groups - The Ur-Quan Masters freeware release was a service to humanity - but honestly, beyond that, P&F haven't done anything in the Star Control universe for a very long time and their sudden activity now seems somewhat disingenous. So what that the legal rights were questionable? If they'd just done "The Ur-Quan Masters II" and made changes where necessary, many fans would have lined up to buy it. But Stardock gets the trademark, starts using it (which is what happens when a company buys trademarks - it's not a gold record you put up on the wall and just look at) and all of a sudden they want to make a Star Control sequel and get belligerent. I'm not certain that P&F's motives are pure.

If this doesn't settle, it's going to take quite a long time to play out. That's a legal strategy too - but it's not one that gets us the games we want anytime soon.

+1 Loading…
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top

Q: What does Stardock want out of this lawsuit?  Is your goal to put Paul and Fred out of business?

A:  Our ONLY goal is to protect our ability to tell more stories in the Star Control multiverse.  We remain fans of Paul and Fred and their contributions to Star Control.  However, given the confusion they’ve created in the market by promoting their new game as a “true sequel” to Star Control II combined with their abuse of the DMCA system to take down even Star Control games they had no involvement with, we are forced to act to prevent them from continuing to create confusion. 

Follow up question: Brad Wardell has said several times that Stardock supports P & F's new game and was actually excited that they are continuing the SC2 story with GotP- basically saying P&F can create new stories using existing SC2 material. Was that just a gentleman's agreement (out of gratitude to the creators) with no legal basis? ... and did Stardock revoke that "arrangement" once P&F sued?

Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top

but honestly, beyond that, P&F haven't done anything in the Star Control universe for a very long time and their sudden activity now seems somewhat disingenous.

I believe they tried several times to pitch a sequel to SC2 to Activision, but failed (?). Even their petition page is still up:

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/petition.php

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/background.php

These were posted sometime in 2006, and even then P&F already believed they own all rights except for the "Star Control" name since 2002 - hence the UQM source code release etc.

Now I suspect P&F haven't even begun developing their new game - for years they did not pursue development when Activision was out. But to suddenly claim they're independently funding their game just as SC:O was starting to gain traction is suspicious. I won't be surprised if they just quickly gave their non-existent project a name and announce it in their blog just to throw a wrench into Stardock's plans.

It's just sad that fans have been waiting for new SC games for the longest time - even 10 years ago, both parties were already interested in creating a true sequel - but now it's just a complete mess. Considering both games are all labors of love (for SC2) makes it even sadder.

+1 Loading…
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top

Thank you for all the responses, it makes one look at the situation with a different perspective... still no one wants either part to give up applying their talent to this brilliant game.

i will keep my faith up that it will work out and pray both parties bring out their respective games... whether they agree on the terms or do it their own seperate way (sad) but if no choice would have to be acceptable i suppose.

Reply #7 from StarControl Forums Top

Consider some of your favorite games or movies. Now imagine if someone instrumental to the development of that game or movie went on to claim to be making a sequel to that game or movie without the consent of the owners of that trademark? What would be the result?

At first I was having and issue picturing this.  What if George Lucas wanted to make his Episode 7.  There are more restrictions on him based on the deal with Disney, but they would definitely say something if he called it "Star Wars" or the squeal to Star Wars Episode VI.  This situation would seem friendly compared to what Disney would do.

Reply #8 from StarControl Forums Top

Kevin has updated his Q&A.

Reply #9 from StarControl Forums Top

Worth reading today's update (the timeline) to get a better understanding of the efforts made to work with (and respect for) Paul and Fred since the beginning.

Reply #10 from StarControl Forums Top

It's nice to finally have a regularly updated canonical timeline from Stardock about the history of all this. It seems clear from this (and it's a timeline I'm familiar with as both a Founder following this for half a decade now, and as someone who's traded emails with Paul on occasion over the last twenty years) that the timing of this is all too convenient to be coincidental. It's not an easy thing for me to say, but I think P&F started their blog purely out of desperation and spite because they knew they were up shit creek without a legal leg to stand on. That's probably a very harsh way to put it, but like tingkagol above, I'm nearly convinced GOTP was just a mechanism to draw attention to a pending legal dispute and there was never any intention to produce it.

I feel like a victim to that plot cliche (used ad nauseum by Disney/Pixar lately) where someone looks up to their hero or role model only to realize they were a villain. Maybe it's a strained or trite analogy, but P&F have not set themselves up as sympathetic here. We all hold P&F in very high regard and it's very difficult to label them like that. But the fact is they have had ample opportunity to ask the right questions, to be involved in the legal process of transitioning their IP, to negotiate content ownership, to state whatever terms they wanted. As they are not commenting on their responses to Stardock's offers to collaborate, who am I supposed to believe?

You could even argue that with all the Skylanders cash they're probably raking in for Activision, they could have bought the property from Atari themselves, so I have a hard time believing they passed it up on lack of financial resources. Or am I supposed to believe that Paul honestly had no idea Accolade went bankrupt eighteen years ago and that Atari went bankrupt six years ago and he only just now realized what the situation was with Star Control? Stardock has been fairly communicative of what's been going on since the beginning, and I find it very hard to believe they're attempting to undermine P&F or snub them of any involvement. But that seems how P&F are behaving.

I fell for it when P&F made the GOTP blog announcement; should have known better as a personal blog wasn't the right avenue for a press release and I had no idea where they would come up with the financial resources and talent to produce a title for a property held outside of Activision and that Stardock would not be associated with. But who can blame fans for wanting to believe? I mean what were they going to do, set up shop in the garage and pound out code in their spare time like it's 1990 again? Kidding. Obviously they'd crowdfund and put it on Steam Early Access like everyone else these days. Kidding again, maybe.

What I'd like to know is this: assuming Stardock actually comes out of this legal dispute with favorable terms, how do they envision moving forward with a brand divorced from the blessing of its original legacy designers? I know this is a big picture question and it has been said several times in these threads that we want to see both sides happy, but I am having a hard time picturing that being the case at this point. I would imagine P&F being rather sour about the whole thing regardless of what happens. Would they still want to be involved with a company they've sued, and been sued by, as if there weren't enough of an uphill battle for them to produce a sequel already?

Reply #11 from StarControl Forums Top

I have a similar impression, Awkbird.  Of course, I don't actually know what is going on, but P&F are displaying all of the trademark aspects of attempting to force the resolution they are seeking through the weight of public opinion.  The tactics of Vladimir Lenin that so many today live by as if that is a good thing and an acceptable way of getting things done.

They take things public, attempt to discredit Brad Wardell as a mustache twirling villain "thief", hire a "PR firm" to create propaganda for them... these are the tactics of people who know they can't win through the system, and just on honesty alone.

I've always liked P&F by reputation, and I don't know that this is what is actually taking place, but if it is... I won't like them much anymore because I don't like anyone who uses these tactics.  These are the types of tactics that bring people like Hitler and Lenin to power.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Vladimir Lenin

 

Reply #12 from StarControl Forums Top

17. Paul and Fred's attorney requests multiple time extensions to respond, use that time to secretly do press interviews, hire a PR firm. (2018)

18. Paul and Fred's attorney files a lawsuit against Stardock alleging copyright infringement and other causes of action. (Feburary).

19. Paul and Fred's PR firm releases a press release to the wire services accusing Stardock's CEO, Brad Wardell, of copyright theft despite not being a party to the suit.

I know Stardock's forums aren't the venue to protest this, but this is silly and brings the entire narrative's presentation of things into doubt. First of all, the suit was filed less than three weeks before Christmas and New Years. Far as I know (not a lawyer but I think they take time off), a time extension would be entirely reasonable.

Second, how does Stardock know how Reiche, Ford, and their lawyer used their  time? I doubt it takes long to give a handful of interviews (actually far as I know, there was only one - Ars Technica) and do a short press release - sounds like a day at most, even half a day. It's much more likely great majority of the extended time was spent on legal matters. 

Third, to say Wardell isn't a party in the lawsuit seems to be splitting hairs, especially with regard to a press release rather than a legal document. Stardock is a party; Wardell is the CEO and I'm sure made the decision to sue or at the very least directly approved of it; he's very closely involved with it regardless of the legal technicalities.

Reply #13 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting joel_ds, reply 12


17. Paul and Fred's attorney requests multiple time extensions to respond, use that time to secretly do press interviews, hire a PR firm. (2018)

18. Paul and Fred's attorney files a lawsuit against Stardock alleging copyright infringement and other causes of action. (Feburary).

19. Paul and Fred's PR firm releases a press release to the wire services accusing Stardock's CEO, Brad Wardell, of copyright theft despite not being a party to the suit.



I know Stardock's forums aren't the venue to protest this, but this is silly and brings the entire narrative's presentation of things into doubt. First of all, the suit was filed less than three weeks before Christmas and New Years. Far as I know (not a lawyer but I think they take time off), a time extension would be entirely reasonable.

Second, how does Stardock know how Reiche, Ford, and their lawyer used their  time? I doubt it takes long to give a handful of interviews (actually far as I know, there was only one - Ars Technica) and do a short press release - sounds like a day at most, even half a day. It's much more likely great majority of the extended time was spent on legal matters. 

Third, to say Wardell isn't a party in the lawsuit seems to be splitting hairs, especially with regard to a press release rather than a legal document. Stardock is a party; Wardell is the CEO and I'm sure made the decision to sue or at the very least directly approved of it; he's very closely involved with it regardless of the legal technicalities.

First, Normally get 30 days to respond. Get an extra 30 because of the holidays takes them into mid January.  They asked and received an additional extension (both were voluntary because Stardock was trying to be professional). 

Second, That they used this time to conduct interviews with the press is public record. It's even mentioned in the Ars article.

Third, I don't even know how to respond to you suggesting it is fine to release a press release to the wire services calling an individual a criminal.  Especially in light of the fact that one of the exhibits confirms mutual understanding that Stardock had these rights.

 

Reply #15 from StarControl Forums Top
[post deleted- I decided there's no point in starting fights with Wardell here. You guys have fun and I'll go; it's Stardock's forum after all. The multiple posts were unintentional and only due to technical error.]
Reply #16 from StarControl Forums Top

I sent a request in to remove the previous item 17. I am persuaded by Joel’s argument that it was opinion. You can still view the deleted text in the edit log on the post.

Reply #17 from StarControl Forums Top

I have to admit, knowing Stardock owned the trademark I was under the impression that Ghost of the Precursors was being done under Stardock and have even gone as far to say to other people that Stardock was developing 2 Star Control games, one sequel based on the old ones and one unrelated 'possibly prequel' set in a new universe. Which was the interpretation I had gleaned from conflicting articles which didn't make it clear and lead me to a conclusion that was clearly wrong...

 

So while I personally don't care for trademark lawyering, I do have to admit as far as the branding was concerned there was room for confusion. But without having looked at it much closer my gut says the games media has a lot to answer for here as even if Paul and Fred never said it themselves, I can't imagine a single site that wouldn't headline the announcement of Ghost of the Precursors as at least a spiritual successor to star control from the star control creators even if they didn't have any of the rights.

 

I mean we've seen that a hundred times in the past decade, especially with crowdfunded games. But even AAA games like Bioshock were billed as the spiritual successor to System Shock even though no one involved had any ownership of any part of the System Shock licence then either. If this was going at the same time the System Shock remake or System Shock 3 were in development like they are currently there would have been all sorts of legal hellfire flying about then too (And EA versus Take Two is a fight I would love to see, whoever wins, we win).

 

Sometimes I wonder if Stardock should just give up on saying anything public relations related and just let business talk. In most cases I think the haters have made up their minds anyway and there would be less chance of slip ups and dumb things (or general miscommunications) said amongst the otherwise well-reasoned stuff for gaming media to latch onto.

Or is it like a no such thing as bad publicity type deal?

I mean I'm half joking when I say that but true or not (I'm sure you feel your hand was forced) there is neither the less a certain irony to saying "We do not like seeing disputes being aired in public" in a public relations announcement. :-P

 

Either way this is whole thing is a mess and the only true winners I see are the games journalist who get to spin it into an even bigger controversy.

So, fingers crossed this blows over and we still get 2 new games on the market I guess. I don't really care what they are named.

Reply #18 from StarControl Forums Top

Added a new question to the Q+A to address the email exchange released by Paul and Fred today.  

Thanks, as always, for your support of Stardock and Star Control!

Kevin

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

Paul and Fred contact Stardock to inform them that they will be announcing a new game that will utilize the characters from their universe.  (Fall 2017)

Stardock asks that they coordinate these announcements together ensure there is no confusion.  Stardock asks, multiple times, to set up a phone call so that they can "brainstorm" a win-win solution.  Paul and Fred decline. (Fall 2017)

May I ask what Stardock's win-win solution was to ensure P&F could create GotP using SC2 aliens?

With Stardock's hard stance to avoid market confusion between these games it seems P&F were right in saying they can't make a sequel without Stardock's permission. Which is confusing since Brad went on record here to say he's actually happy and excited GotP was in production and even saying "that's why we didn't use the SC2 aliens" perhaps letting legal implications slide out of respect for P&F.

It's really starting to make sense now. With P&F's recent victory versus GoG, they felt emboldened they could win this one too. And with the email exchange between P&F, GoG, and Atari agreeing Atari held rights to the SC trademark, things are getting grim for P&F.

Reply #20 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 19

May I ask what Stardock's win-win solution was to ensure P&F could create GotP using SC2 aliens?

Our win-win solution at the time was that they go forward with their game, avoid giving any appearance that they might be competing projects.  We won't interfere with them. They don't interfere with us. 

Star Control: Origins had avoided, at some negative PR cost I might add, including the aliens from SC2.  We were willing to make that official in a written agreement.  

In response, they demanded we not use the term "Super-Melee" and demanded that we police the Star Control community to remove any fan made ships they didn't like. They demanded we delete fan art people had posted on our forums or on Steam.  They insisted that we remove the little homage in the background of one the alien scenes.  And they made these demands while they were publicly promoting their game as a direct sequel to Star Control, a flagrant violation of our IP rights.

The reason Stardock kept quiet about all this, keep in mind you wouldn't even know there was a suit if their PR agency hadn't set up press interviews for them and done a press release, was in the hopes of coming to some sort of amicable agreement.  

If Paul and Fred wanted to make a new Star Control game they could have.  We offered to transfer it all to them at our cost in 2013.  They declined.  So we went forward. 

People want a new Star Control game.  In an age where games are being released that brag about having quintillion planets and randomly generated everything, we believe there is a desire in the gaming community for story-driven space adventures.  That's what makes Star Control unique.  

Having been inundated with social media abuse from Paul and Fred's fans, I would ask that they remember: All we want to do is make a great game. 

The men and women at Stardock have poured four years of their lives (so far) into making a new Star Control game.  We think the fans will love it.  We think a new generation of gamers will love it.   

 

Reply #21 from StarControl Forums Top

I, personally, would MUCH rather explore a galaxy with 500 stars that all seem relevant in some way, even if they are uninhabited, then be lost in a galaxy with 5,000 stars only a few dozen of which are actually inhabited in some way.  A "realistic galaxy" is just too much for the human mind to contemplate.  The player just gives up on trying to understand the structure of it and becomes lost in "too much information to process".  A galaxy feels more like a galaxy if you understand the structure of it as a game map than it does when it is "realistic" and there is too much there for the human mind to contemplate.

As for the top down space combat genre, I've been calling it "the lost genre of computer games" for 20 years now.  I think modern gamers who have never experienced this genre before are going to become completely immersed in the SCO adventure game.  It condenses the galaxy down to something that people can understand and keep track of.  The simplicity of the game itself is akin to the simplicity of a 500 star galaxy that can be understood, compared too a 5,000 star galaxy that the player almost immediately gives up on trying to understand.

Reply #22 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 20
In response, they demanded we not use the term "Super-Melee" and demanded that we police the Star Control community to remove any fan made ships they didn't like. They demanded we delete fan art people had posted on our forums or on Steam.  They insisted that we remove the little homage in the background of one the alien scenes.  And they made these demands while they were publicly promoting their game as a direct sequel to Star Control, a flagrant violation of our IP rights.

This is interesting.  My opinion (FWIW, IANAL) is that "Super-Melee" seems too generic for anyone to claim exclusivity over.  Removing uses of the art from any Stardock-produced work is fair to ask, if a bit unfriendly.  But insisting on policing fan works is stepping into over-controlling territory. 

Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint (Edit: Again, IANAL), I think the 2005 Grokster decision increases Stardock's exposure here, because it means that PR can argue that if Stardock profits from its users infringing PR's copyright, then Stardock is liable for secondary copyright infringement.  And 'profit' has been interpreted fairly expansively; the presence of the art on the official forums of a commercial product might be enough.

Reply #23 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 22

Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, I think the 2005 Grokster decision increases Stardock's exposure here, because it means that PR can argue that if Stardock profits from its users infringing PR's copyright, then Stardock is liable for secondary copyright infringement.  And 'profit' has been interpreted fairly expansively; the presence of the art on the official forums of a commercial product might be enough.

You should say "from a non-lawyer standpoint".  You'd be hard pressed to find an IP attorney who would want to argue that modding are infringing.  What's next? Suing LEGO? 

The issue of ship designers has been well reviewed by legal for over 12 years (since GalCiv II).  

 

Reply #24 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 23
You should say "from a non-lawyer standpoint".

Note the "IANAL" earlier in the post, and the "I think..." preface to label it as a personal opinion.  I didn't feel the need to repeat the IANAL, but I'll put another one in just to be safe.  :-)

Reply #25 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 24


Quoting Frogboy,
reply 23
You should say "from a non-lawyer standpoint".



Note the "IANAL" earlier in the post, and the "I think..." preface to label it as a personal opinion.  I didn't feel the need to repeat the IANAL, but I'll put another one in just to be safe.  :)

;)  I would just say that when drawing legal conclusions, it's probably extra important to mention that.    I happen to be more familiar on the ship design stuff because our games have included ship designers for a long time so it's a topic we are pretty familiar with. :)