I think he was talking about the SC2 aliens/lore specifically, not the SC trademark.

So question for Stardock...

Will we see a May update similar to the April one?      I'm not a founder (didn't have the free floating cash when the founders stuff was offered or I would be...)   but I'm very hungry for updates on the development and teasers

Thanks for this. This does make a lot of sense. But I suppose Marvel and DC have an existing licensing contract with Stan Lee for his copyrighted material. Had the license expired and if somehow the copyrights reverted back to Stan Lee based on some contract clause, things would become eerily similar to this dispute (and just as confusing). Care to share your thoughts on this? Thanks

At the moment no one definitely knows if the 1988 agreement is still in effect. All I know is if it still is, P&F are screwed.

The only disagreement on that has you, Lakstoties and the other armchair lawyers on one side, and actual real IP lawyers who do this for a living on the other side. Can you honestly not understand why we don't take you seriously?

Like, seriously?

There's a reasonably major update every month, but it's only for founders and is under the NDA so we can't share it with you. Sorry, man

I think the lawsuits concerning the creator of Superman and DC comics is the best easily graspable case where IP got messy in a public way.   In the end the Trademark, not the copyright was what won the day for DC.   

But yes... with the Fox trademarks for Xmen, Fantastic 4 and Deadpool... Marvel sold them the rights to the trademark back in the days when Marvel was nearly going bankrupt.     the Irony is that had the original trilogy of Xmen movies not paid out such crazy big royalties Marvel would have folded and we would not have the MCU/Disney powerhouse we have today.      Meanwhile Disney couldn't buy the trademarks back cause fox wouldn't sell so they just bought all of fox.

Everyone KNOWS that Green Arrow and Hawkeye are basically the same character... but Hawkeye doesn't infringe on anything DC owns because rather than being green, he's purple etc...   

Spaceballs the movie was an obvious parody of Star Wars, but the Schwartz came from a ring and was turned into a penis joke....   it wasn't a lightsaber, none of the aliens were the same, none of the plot elements were the same... so no copyright got touched.

The long and short of it is...   while Copyright is super valuable, the Trademark controls who can sell it.

Stardock owns the trademark.   Even in the absolutely unlikely case that the original Trademark is invalidated.. SC:O is the first use of the trademark so SD would STILL own the trademark.  Anything that was previously sold as Star Control is theirs within limits.    Take Orz for example...  assuming that Paul and Fred have that IP... Stardock can have the orz in their game without paying any royalties so long as they are not strange yellow beaked aliens..

If Stardock mad the Orz into  Pink fluffy elephants or made the Spathi into fierce warrior turtles that never know when to back down from a fight...    they can.  These are things in their Trademark  that would be so different from the Copyright that Paul and Fred have it would not infringe.

Meanwhile, because Paul and Fred have been unwilling to come to terms with Stardock and do not have the right to use the Trademark, if Stardock can show confusion or detriment to their product due to release...   Paul and Fred legally cannot sell anything with the original aliens BECAUSE of the link back to the name Star Control.

At least that is my layman's understanding from having had published works and looking at the rights of the publisher vrs me...   I own my characters, no one else can use them or my story without my permission.  But I no longer own my publishing rights, so I cannot go and make a new item and direct sell it without violation of the trademarks owned by the company that published my work.

Anyway.... I really don't want to be a lay lawyer as there is enough of that going on and without the specific contracts and documentation all I can do is speculate.  so I'm going to shut up now 

So, let's think about that for a minute.  We have two sides involved in a legal dispute. You seem to be suggesting that we should take the word of one of the parties on how the law applies to the case, simply because they say their lawyer said so.

I appreciate that Brad has decided to stay engaged in discussions, but he is, obviously, biased.  It's only common sense to assume that everything he says is designed to present the facts and the legalities in the light most favorable to Stardock.

So while I certainly hope nobody takes my speculation and opinion as anything more than that, I also think that Brad's statements need to be looked at with an appropriate amount of healthy skepticism, especially because the other side isn't offering a counter-narrative that would allow us to weigh both arguments.  Assuming that we're getting a clear-eyed and balanced story when we're only hearing one side seems unwise.

I think it's unfair to assume P&F don't have IP lawyers of their own. But their silence (apart from their blog posts that have since stopped) and Brad's guarantee of having consulted real lawyers about the dispute does make it seem like P&F are short on consultation about IP law.

The rest is just the noise/internet I suppose. One can easily dismiss what anyone rambles on about here, but outside the court, public discussion still does have the power to ruin a company's reputation.

Kinda hoping for more nuggets.

It's an interesting example, but it's hard to say if it actually parallels with this case without knowing what kind of licensing contracts were involved.  I suspect that the IP tangles over comic book rights would make the Star Control legal battle look like child's play.

Quoting Taslios, reply 352

So question for Stardock...

Will we see a May update similar to the April one?      I'm not a founder (didn't have the free floating cash when the founders stuff was offered or I would be...)   but I'm very hungry for updates on the development and teasers

 

 

Yes. Stay tuned.

that's sorta kinda exactly my point....      without knowing the contracts and the details all of any of this is raw speculation.

so care to answer my previous question as to why you are so adamant about seeing things as though Stardock "must" be overplaying and is the big bad corp while Paul and Fred are given every benefit?

Ah, but in this case, we do have the contract involved.  Most of the talk is still speculation, of course; just a little bit less raw.

Yes (though that's not how I would describe my views), but I keep interrupting it to answer other questions. 

Also, what I’ve written here is basically what any IP attorney will tell you.

Most of the time, these issues are fuzzy.  It’s something like a company calling their product name something similar to someone else’s mark. Could Stardock stop someone from calling their game Galactic Empires (I don’t know, it’s fuzzy).

But here we have someone using the mark, in trademark form, to announce that they are the sequel to the our company's mark. In litigation, you rarely see something that clear cut. Not to mention the subsequent fall out of actual confusion and actual loss of good will that has been documented.

Now, can Stardock prevent PF from using the aliens (name and likeness) in commerce? I’m not an attorney but the lawyers say absolutely. Do we want to stop them? Not really because we don’t really want to stop them from making a game.  Can they stop us from having the Star Control aliens in our games? Definitely not. Could they force us to make sure they look different and have ships that look different? I don’t know but we’d update the looks anyway.

You are putting too much value into any copyrights Paul and Fred may or may not be able to prove they own while disregarding the value of the mark. I know why you are doing that, because you are shading your posts to benefit Paul and Fred. I am honestly starting to wonder if your posts are intentionally malicious.  

You, in particular, have a habit of making clearly erroneous statements of the law and stating it as a fact. The two times I explicitly gave you a case law citation you claimed you had already read the case yet your post just prior to my citation post included conclusive legal analysis that is completely contradictory to the *holding* of the opinion, never mind additional dictum within the opinion. 

Please explain to the class how Paul and Fred can expect to publish a game that thematically shares enough elements of the original Star Control games to please the die hard fans without violating Stardock's mark? Do you understand the damages Paul and Fred could face if Stardock shows they violated their mark? Keep in mind, at this point, I imagine showing Paul and Fred willfully violated the mark, regardless of if Stardock held a valid registered mark at the time, would be easy.

Just as an idea of what Elestan, Lakstoties, and the other lackeys are posting elsewhere. 

Again guys and gals, this isn't Stardock's interpretation of the law. Stardock has counsel who has spent his entire career in this field. You are delusional for believing a layman googling and reading Wikipedia knows better than a top-IP law firm partner.

Nothing.  Yes, they announced a potential game in the future, that may or may not happen.  The present result of that... Nothing.  Maybe it won't be nothing in the future.  Maybe it'll still be nothing in the future.  And I don't give a damn at the end of the day, if I EVER get anything.

Loyalty is the wrong word.  Principle.  And it has nothing to do with what Paul and Fred has done.

Okay...  Verbosity away!

Before, I was actually quite happy of the arrangement Stardock had declared.  Stardock had bought the trademark "Star Control", hence they could make whatever game they felt with usual feature set in space that everyone anticipates from Stardock, and stamp the "Star Control" mark ON the product to attract the fanbase and press to their reboot.

BUT...  The copyrights to Star Control 1 and 2 still remain in Paul and Fred's hands.  This was good news to me.  Most companies swoop in, buy intellectual property in its entirety.  This time... It DID NOT HAPPEN.  Unlike what happened to Wing Commander, Ultima, X-COM, SimCity, Master of Orion, Fallout, and so many others...   Stardock only got the trademark.  They can call the game Star Control whatever, but they could not use of the old lore.  The old lore is protected by copyright outside the scope of the trademark.  It won't be shredded to pieces, mismanaged, mutated, or completely disregarded save a few superficial elements to skin over. (I'm looking at you, Bethesda.)

In that moment, I was content.  Because if Paul and Fred chose to pursue a continuation of The Ur-Quan Masters, they could freely.  Here's the thing, the contents, all the copyrighted material IN the product, has NEVER been tied directly to the trademark.  Accolade got the trademark just to prevent anyone else from putting the title "Star Control" on their game boxes and putting those on shelves next to their game.  That's it really.   That's all trademarks do.

And really, the content of The Ur-Quan Masters has been disassociated from the "Star Control" trademark for YEARS.  Most people go to The Ur-Quan Masters when they want a copy of the game.  So perfect situation, Stardock gets to remake/relaunch/redo/re-imagining what they want AND The Ur-Quan Masters is far away from all that with the option for Paul and Fred to continue it if they so chose.  "That's great," I thought.  Everyone wins.

Then..  October 2017 happened and things got strange.  Upon researching, it looked simple enough.  Paul and Fred edged too close in referencing the trademark (Thought competitors Coke and Pepsi make far worst references to each other with the other's trademark... ALL THE TIME), and they needed to take a few steps back.  (Companies are typically fierce with trademark protection.  For example, Bethesda thought that Notch's game "Scrolls" got to close to their "The Elder Scrolls" title/trademark.)  Cool.  All references made by Paul and Fred's previous work will be to "The Ur-Quan Masters".  Problem solved, confusion headed off at the pass.  You want the new hotness? "Star Control".  Want the classics? "The Ur-Quan Masters".  We can all move on.  On Stardock's side, it seemed like there was a misunderstanding over what distribution agreements were alive or not.  Lawyer meet up, review who had what contracts, and maybe even negotiate a new royalty sharing deal.  Life is good.  (That's what Atari and Fred and Paul did with GOG originally.  So, it has happened before.)

But...  When researching and reading more about trademarks, and exploring more into their scope and power...  I did a TESS search on Stardock to see all the trademarks it had...  Then...  I saw this...  http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch

To recount my forum policy cleaned words: "What.  The.  Actual.  *%#@!?"

That is the moment my opinion of Stardock changed.  That was the first of a series of moves that did not make sense and felt WRONG.  All the laws and literature I have read before and since haven't stopped making it feel wrong.  That discovery made me pour through legal texts, read huge, dry chunks of the Lanham Act (trademarks), and dig through the awful formatting upon the US Copyright office's version of the current copyright laws.

I've been double-checking my understanding of trademark and copyright constantly.  So far from my resources, my understanding is correct.  Which I would hope to be the case, after trying to get into the tabletop game industry for a number of years in many failed attempts.  The education about the difference between all the types of intellectual property is a big thing in that industry, because you have to know it to avoid serious issues and conflicts. (Seriously, check out https://www.boardgamegeek.com/  A market that dense with so many games of similar themes, identical mechanics, and company buyouts...  You have to know the differences and divisions between it all.)  And the intellectual property rights aren't hard to grasp the basics of.  You don't need to be a lawyer.  Simple summary:  If it is the title and company logos you put ON the box, trademark.  If it is material you put IN the box (and the box art), copyright."

That is it.  Really!  I'm not kidding.  You can even play at home as you read this to prove it.  Look for the company name of the display device you are using to read this statement.  That's the company's trademark you are looking at and it is ON the device.  With that name in mind, does thinking about the trademark bring forward any specific names, detailed specifications, or any of the contents inside the device to mind?  Kind of hard, even for companies that have really limited product lines.  Or do you just get general concepts about the product, like general feelings about craftsmanship, the lack of craftsmanship, and the sense of quality the company normally aims for in its products?  That there is the goodwill a trademark is suppose to invoke.  Trademarks represent the source, the organization behind it.

To further show relationship between trademark and product, think of "Samsung" and "LG".  Take a moment, open a new browser tab, and go to their websites, and see the range of products they create.  When you try to derive specifics about the content of a product from those trademarks... it seems impossible and ludicrous...   Because, that's not what trademarks are for.  The trademark just indicates who put it on the market.

We can flip it around, too!  In the custom PC market there are A LOT of companies that sell power supplies.  There's FAR LESS Original Equipment Manufacturers out there.  What a lot of companies do is that they buy power supplies from an OEM and brand them, and sell them under their trademark.  So, you have many power supplies that are relatively the same (sometimes exactly) but only differ by the trademark upon them, and it happens all the time.  Business as usual.  Corsair, Thermaltake, and few others do this all the time.

If you read this far, thank you first off...  But, if what I have presented contrasts what you have been shown...  That is why we all keep trying to refute, find more resources, and gather more information.  And we refuse because it doesn't make sense given what we have learned.  We are pulling from the same resources, here they are:  https://www.uspto.gov/  and https://www.copyright.gov/  Feel free to explore them.

As someone who has failed to have great success from many creative efforts...  eBooks, board games, tabletop RPGs, short stories, and a game engine...  I relate to you how absolutely frightening the concept is that someone outside to your copyrighted work can attempt to register trademarks to elements within your copyrighted work, override your copyright protections, and dictate what you can do with it.  That's NOT a legal precedence I want established and one you probably don't established either.  Because some companies have already been trying to do similar the titles of books:  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online

So, that's my position since you asked.  If it doesn't sway you, then there's nothing I can do.  From resource, the next court mandated settlement meeting date is close a year from now... So...  Ain't much else to say...  Ya'll have fun.

Thanks for asking. 

To start with, just to let you know where I'm coming from, I've been a fan of Stardock since GalCiv2, during which I made an effort to diligently report every bug I found.  I still enjoy Fallen Enchantress, and I've always praised Stardock's stance on DRM; few other companies (save GoG) have been so sensible on that issue.

When I entered these discussions a few months ago, it seemed to me that Paul and Fred had been reckless in using the phrase "Star Control" in their GotP announcement, that they jumped the gun taking the dispute public, and that their PR firm was making off the rails accusations.  And while as a longtime UQM forum participant, I shared P&F's understanding of what the copyright and trademark status of the games was, I was quite concerned that P&F's 2013 emails with Brad were so vague that they might have hid the scope of the IP rights Paul had retained under his 1988 contract, such that Brad got rudely blindsided four years later after investing a bunch of money in SC:O's development.  I posted about those concerns on more than one forum.

So initially, my sympathies actually lay with Stardock.

And with that, I'm out of time for today (I'll try to finish tomorrow), though I'll spare one note for eride:  If you're going to call me out by name for something I posted elsewhere, you should really make sure that there's actually something from me in the text you quote.

I think the quote functioning in #367 is somewhat screwed, so the point ultimately is a wee bit lost...;)

Edit....looks better now...;)

Enough Laks. I stopped reading as soon as you stated “that’s all trademarks do”. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Good gravy. You fail at even the most basic understanding of the point of a trademark. It isn’t to protect just the word or symbol but what it represents. That’s the point.

Trademarks don’t override copyrights. It controls how they are used in commerce. 

Here: http://bfy.tw/I9SZ

They are designed to protect consumer confusion regarding the origin of goods and services. If the Ur-Quan and Spathi and Orz showed up in another game used in commerce is there a likelihood of confusion that that game is related to Star Control? Of course. End of story.

The only question remains, why get trademark in the first place, if you then go on and do something like this?

Timmaigh,    The trademark dictates who can produce and sell an item.   Look at the Abrams Trek and Star Trek Discovery vrs TOS, STNG, DS9, and the earlier movies....

Both CBS and Paramount who were once one company and are now seperate companies control some portion of the Trademark, so both can sell something known as Star Trek.

However they don't share the same IP when it comes to the copyright.   So the uniforms, some of the stories, and the look of the ships is DIFFERENT so as to create their own universe where they have control over what is produced.  Either way it is Star Trek.

Laks:

I think you are highly confused and attributing different categories of trademark.   Also some of what you are referencing has nothing to do with Trademark.   Samsung and LG are both OEM manufacturers...  the PROCESS of manufacture is what is protected with OEMs...    the average consumer doesn't care what's in the TV as long as they can watch their sunday sportsball.  To look at this in a different field, go google La Mars IA.  Specifically the Wells Blue Bunny Ice Cream factory.   Something like 50+% of the ice cream eaten in the entire world is made there for brands such as Hagen Das, Briers, Dryers, Schwans  etc.     They obviously have the recipe from these brands.. but the agreements they have as the Manufacturer prevent them from using those recipes for a different label.   in both these cases the contracts are what is controlling the production and market of the end product...  the trademarks and copyrights just make the contracts more clear between developer and producer.

Micheal A Stackpole wrote a whole bunch of books in the Star Wars Universe  He created the character Corran Horn...  the book I Jedi was a New York Times best seller etc..  Corran Horn the character is His.   Yet if he were to write a book in one of his fantasy worlds where a character named Corran Horn showed up with Magical powers that allowed him to absorb energy and throw things etc...   Disney would be on him for trademark infringement in a matter of milliseconds. 

The things you are sooo upset about are standard practice.   You think that Hollywood studios don't go trademark the names of future movies the second they start production?    Pixar is well known for filing a bunch of trademarks at the same time  developing some of them and letting the rest lapse simply so they can control their marketing.      I don't agree with the practice, but it is commonly done.  Your ire is misplaced.

So you say Abrams Trek and Discovery are somewhat different from the previous shows, because they lack all the needed copyrights? To be honest, i believed they were different (when they were different, cause obviously, many things remained similar or downright same) on purpose, in case of JJ Trek cause it was obvious attempt for reboot to revive fading brand, in case of Discovery probably just a desire to be in some ways original and updated and whatnot... I dont think Klingons in Discovery were different cause they lacked copyright to make them the same as before...  from what i could gather, it was deliberate choice... though i admit i cant know for sure.

...anyway you can bet, many Trekkies were not happy about that - especially, since the creators claimed continuity with Prime Universe...and then first thing they do is to change the looks of their most iconic race. I, for one, was not impressed.

I assume many fans of original Star Control games and at the same time probably the most potential buyers of the new ones would not be happy, if the Orz in the new SC would become "pink fluffy elephants" as you said, to avoid copyright issue - pretty sure these people expect continuity with what they fell in love once - not just in gameplay, but everything (that made it so good and memorable)...

Then there is the other group of people, who might buy the game, but is not familiar with the original games and never played them - surely you dont need the trademark cause of them, cause the name itself means nothing to them?

Thus the content of my previous post you reacted to.

Timmy,

SCII was made in 1992       A very large number of consumers who may buy the game were not even born yet when this game came out.     I've stated several times I've never played it myself.

Initially I was interested in the game specifically and only because StarDock was involved and making it.   I'm willing to bet that 90% of the people who buy it will have never finished SC1-2 or 3 previously or did not know of them until Stardock started advertising them and put them back on steam.

This!  This is why the Trademark matters.  The trademark gives Stardock the RECOGNIZABLE "thing" in this case game style and universe in which to develop and sell a game.     The trademark is the name and the name links back to the franchise so even if no one has ever heard of it before the history has intrinsic value.. in SC's case about $300,000 of value at the time they bought it.

The Copyright protects the specific images, story, and lore...   it doesn't protect names, or mechanics

I could not care less if the Orz were pink elephants.    If the Lore that Stardock makes for them is compelling and interesting then in their universe/multiverse whatever evolution happened differently and now we have Pink Orz and ugly Scyreen or whatever.    In all actuality I would think that fans of the original game would LIKE this because it would leave the other universe completely alone.

Major changes like this are frequent in computer games.    Look at Mass Effect   In mass Effect 1 weapons had heatsinks and you never had to worry about clips or ammo you just had to worry about overheating.   Player abilities were designed to slow down or ignore overheating.

Mass Effect 2 totally changed this mechanic and then made jokes about it.      Only a few people cared.

Look at the Star Trek Universe again.   How many times has the "birth of the Federation" story been told and retold?    Initially the Klingons got Warp Technology from a crashed Federation ship...  but then Enterprise came and the Klingons were more advanced and had had warp for years.   Again only a few people cared... (ok a lot of people cared and people still care but in the end of the day on its own Enterprise was a decent show and was enjoyed by a large fan base)


I said earlier that I did not want to be a lay lawyer so I'm going to try to stay out of the legalities as much as possible.

To break this down as much as I can...     Stardock CAN use the aliens from earlier SC.  they cannot use the exact lore.

They chose not to use them and got lambasted by the original fans.
They say ok fine given Paul and Fred are being tools and won't work with us we WILL use them, and this lead to a new lambasting.

I guess this goes out to Laks and Elestan as well;  Given the timeline of events that both sides have posted.   What in your minds Should Stardock have done?   and why?    

Thanks for your elaborate answer.

I never played Star Control myself...and i am old enough, but somehow it missed me. I am yet to buy Origins and i probably will, but i guess i will do so only when its finished...was considering when beta got out, but i am more interested in the adventure part of the game than those fleet battles on their own. Kinda hope it will be more like deeper and better Weird Adventures in Infinite Space with "talking" part on top of it, which is something i usually enjoy in games - actually the part i enjoyed most in Mass Effect. And i totally love Infinite Space.

Anyway, i still dont understand why do you need anything "recognizable", if you know or suspect, 90 percent of your target audience is unfamiliar with previous games. Maybe this is just a word play, semantics, i am not native english speaker after all, but in my mind i kinda connect the word recognition with familiarity - you can only recognize something you have seen before....or no? From hearsay maybe, is that enough to convince you to buy? 

You say you dont care whether the Orz are pink elephants - i suppose thats because you did not play original games (enough). I have hard time to believe you care for the actual name of the game then. It could be called anything else and you would still form your decision whether to buy or not based on different factors. Like if they told you its going to be akin less serious Mass Effect - that would tell you more about what to expect  than whole Star Control trademark - since unlike SC you actually played and know Mass Effect (i assume based on the details in your post regarding changes between 1 and 2..). 

In your previous post you said trademark dictates who can produce and sell the item. If your newly produced item lacks continuity with what said trademark used to represent, why have it? To whom do you want to sell? Would you buy Coca Cola brand and then start selling orange juice under that trademark instead of usual fizzy drink? Do you count on people not care and still buy because it says Coca Cola on the sticker?

Eegarding Star Trek, i watched all the shows bar TOS and i considered most of them at least decent. Including Enterprise and Discovery. I even sort of liked Abrams movies - well the first of them anyway. But i am certainly not a fan of all the revisionism and retconning and as far as Discovery goes, it might as well have been called differently, cause i dont really see much of Star Trek there. Even though, as i said, i watched it and consider it OK.