DeepSpaceNine DeepSpaceNine

Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred

▼

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

1,790,452 views 728 replies
Reply #376 from StarControl Forums Top

As for the recognizable....  I'd say that even if it is not recognized by all, being recognized by some has value.   There are people who have waited 20+ years for a new SC game   that is a premade market.

Also the TM allows any new material made and sold to be protected.

Either way...   when people think of a Bioware game they in general know they are going to get a hero epic RPG with some flirting sex and gore
When people think of Star Craft... they probably think of "needs more Vespasian Gas"  but the general faster RTS elements are known.
When people talk about Mech combat sim games...  chances are they are talking about some form of Battletech

in the long and the short of it Stardock did not NEED the SC trademark to make their game.   They could have made a game with totally new alien races with FPS fleet combat rather than top down and called it  "Captain Frog's great adventure"       with clever marketing the game would have sold and they would have made money.

But because Star control is in and of itself a "type" of game.  if they wanted to make that "type" of game the best way to do that is to buy the TM and use it as it has value in identifying the style and type of game.    Yes the lore and characters from the original games are great.   But in the end of the day none of them are as important as the "type"  that is associated with the TM that is Star Control.

 

 

Reply #377 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 374

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

The key factor when it comes to copyright protection of work...  Is the collection of elements and attributes that make up the representation of an idea similar enough to another work?  Copyright protects the representations of ideas within a creative work.  And names, while not individually copyrightable, are attributes that when used with other elements factor greatly in determination of similarity and how derivative.  So if the name is used, the rest of the attributes associated with the name in that creative work need to be different enough to not be considered similar and derivative to another related collection of attributes in another work.  And names are just one possible attribute of many that can be used.  So, even if you name swap alien race descriptions...  There's still many other attributes that would lead toward concluding something is similar and derivative.

 

Quoting Taslios, reply 374

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?

Stardock should have never paid the actions of Fred and Paul any mind.  Because ultimately, they could sit back, laughed, and taken a wait and see approach.  Fred and Paul referenced Star Control in the Ghost of the Precursors announcement?  Free advertising, spin it like this:  "We're happy to echo the announcement that Fred and Paul have gotten the go ahead to pursue Ghost of the Precursors.  We await in anticipation of what they will create and how they will continue the classic storyline of The Ur-Quan Masters.  And in celebration, we are offering a limited time sale on pre-purchase for Star Control: Origins on Steam and GoG.com!  It will take time for Fred and Paul to craft their story, but until then you can experience Stardock's new adventure and future fan creations within Star Control: Origins...  Soon..."

The DMCA Notice on Steam?  "We need to suspend sales of the Classic Star Control games upon Steam.  It seems that there is some legal paperwork that needs to be sorted through by Stardock and Paul and Fred.  Rest assured, we are taking the required efforts to address all parties' concerns.  We have agreed to "secure" both legal teams in a remote, undisclosed location far from any known civilization.  We hope with the proper encouragement of eventual rescue, contingent upon a equitable resolution produced by both legal teams, that we will be able to offer the Classic Star Control back on Steam.  Until then, feel free to experience The Ur-Quan Masters for the revised experience.  And don't forget...  Star Control: Origin's release grows ever closer, so take advantage of limited time sale on pre-purchases on both Steam and GoG.com!"

Tada!  Fandom goodwill, money in the bank, good press, and more...  And no litigation costs!  (Well, except the retainer fees to lawyers... and airdropping the lawyers to the remote location.)  Worse case scenario, you just don't sell the old games on Steam, don't mention it any further, and cut a check for the Steam royalties to Fred and Paul to settle it out.  Life goes on and efforts redirected to Star Control: Origins.

 

Idealistic?  Maybe.  Could have happened?  Totally.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #378 from Sins Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 376

As for the recognizable....  I'd say that even if it is not recognized by all, being recognized by some has value.   There are people who have waited 20+ years for a new SC game   that is a premade market.

Also the TM allows any new material made and sold to be protected.

Either way...   when people think of a Bioware game they in general know they are going to get a hero epic RPG with some flirting sex and gore
When people think of Star Craft... they probably think of "needs more Vespasian Gas"  but the general faster RTS elements are known.
When people talk about Mech combat sim games...  chances are they are talking about some form of Battletech

in the long and the short of it Stardock did not NEED the SC trademark to make their game.   They could have made a game with totally new alien races with FPS fleet combat rather than top down and called it  "Captain Frog's great adventure"       with clever marketing the game would have sold and they would have made money.



But because Star control is in and of itself a "type" of game.  if they wanted to make that "type" of game the best way to do that is to buy the TM and use it as it has value in identifying the style and type of game.    Yes the lore and characters from the original games are great.   But in the end of the day none of them are as important as the "type"  that is associated with the TM that is Star Control.

  

 

Yeah, but that group of people, who waited those 20 years, certainly did not wait to have Orz as pink elephants. If there is a premade market, i think it expects continuity with previous iterations - not just in regard to gameplay, but story, characters, art-style, music, etc... all of that together makes the brand and all of it is important IMO.

About the last paragraph, If that´s so, than fair enough. I do not see it, but no doubt i would need to play it to appreciate it for its uniqueness. Maybe then i would change my views in this particular matter.

Reply #379 from StarControl Forums Top

Wow. Just wow. This sort of blase attitude towards IP law is what got P&F into trouble in the first place, and likely why Stardock will probably be able to extract a pretty hefty settlement should they so wish. Stardock has no obligation to accommodate P&F. If they infringe upon Stardock's IP, they should have to deal with the full legal consequences. Their past association with the IP is irrelevant, since they have no ownership rights to the trademark today. The sentimentality of older fans counts for nothing in the legal framework of trademark ownership. Actually, it does count for one thing. Demonstrating that P&F used that sentimentality to stir up hostility against Stardock will allow for Stardock to extract an even bigger settlement when the time comes. And quite frankly, considering the base has been broken and P&F aren't willing to accept their responsibility in precipitating that breakage, Stardock would be better off in just rebuilding the base on their terms.

+3 Loading…
Reply #380 from StarControl Forums Top

^^^^  what he said ^^^^

There are soo sooo so many reasons Laks why what you think could have happened absolutely would never ever have happened.    No company would buy IP and spend the money SD has spent and then react in the way you seem to think they should have.

Reply #381 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 358

I think it's unfair to assume P&F don't have IP lawyers of their own.

They seem to have spent all their money on PR firms to make disparaging tweets instead of a legal team, so they probably can't afford lawyers now ;-)

But yes, more seriously you're probably right. I certainly HOPE they have a decent legal team, because my impression so far has been that they are relying in large part on public opinion to argue their side, and that's not going to be conducive to winning. But we'll see I suppose.

Reply #382 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Lakstoties, reply 367

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.

That is absolutely, utterly, demonstrably NOT all Trademarks do. You're delusional.

I can't even be bothered going over your other points or conversing further with you when you constantly forthrightly state such blatant nonsense as fact.

Reply #383 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Timmaigh, reply 373

...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'm with you on that one. Other than the fu manchu mustache ridiculousness that was ST:TOS Klingons, they have had a stable and recognisable look for all of Star Trek history in the many decades since. To change them in the latest Trek was ridiculous and a slap in the face for the fans. I certainly HOPE it was done because they had to (for copyright or whatever) as opposed to just doing it because they felt like it, because there's no excuse for the 2nd option but at least the 1st one has a reason.

Reply #384 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting bleybourne, reply 383


Quoting Timmaigh,
reply 373

...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'm with you on that one. Other than the fu manchu mustache ridiculousness that was ST:TOS Klingons, they have had a stable and recognisable look for all of Star Trek history in the many decades since. To change them in the latest Trek was ridiculous and a slap in the face for the fans. I certainly HOPE it was done because they had to (for copyright or whatever) as opposed to just doing it because they felt like it, because there's no excuse for the 2nd option but at least the 1st one has a reason.



I was mostly not impressed with the paywall.    Especially after they chose to sue their own fans and get all draconian on fan made projects such as Axxanar.

I am now a fan of the Orville ;)

+1 Loading…
Reply #385 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 380

There are soo sooo so many reasons Laks why what you think could have happened absolutely would never ever have happened. No company would buy IP and spend the money SD has spent and then react in the way you seem to think they should have.

It's just cost-value calculations at the end of the day.  You can either spend resources to litigate, or just spend resources drowning them out in advertising, marketing, and establishing a far greater presence.  Big competitors do this all the time, Pepsi and Coca-Cola.  You literally have companies referencing the other's trademark in a negative light for an ad, making fun of them in Super Bowl commercials, and nitpicking each other's faults.  But they don't launch lawsuits for minor things like that, they just twist it to their own benefit through marketing.  And if you want a weird one that involves both Pepsi and Coca-Cola...  Both companies actually manufacture Dr. Pepper.  (Coca-Cola in the US and Pepsi throughout the rest of the world.)

The thing is that Stardock has a market presence using the "Star Control" trademark.  So how an announcement upon a blog effects a multi-million dollar company is beyond me.  The most it did was flash up as filler upon a few gaming sites to keep the staff writers busy.  That announcement has faded away by now.  To demonstrate...

"Sir! Sir! Mr. LakCEO!"

"What?!  What do you want?!  I'm busy!  I'm three turns way from the Drengin parking half their fleets on one of my best worlds!  What do you want!"

"The owners of the copyrights for the game, our acquired trademark was put on before in the past, have made an announcement upon their blog!"

"And?!"

"They are planning on making a game and referenced our trademark!"

"What did they call the game?!"

"Precursor's Ghosts!"

"... ... ... Okay...  That's it?"

"Um, yes.  That said it would be a true sequel to their old work, Controlling Stars V!"

"Okay...  But, they ain't calling it Controlling Stars: Precursor's Ghost, right?"

"Um, no, sir."

"What did they post on their blog thing?"

"Just saying they are starting work on the project, sir."

"Just Starting?  That's it?  Any mock up screenshots?"

"No, sir."

"Design documents, pictures of reference materials, a title graphic?"

"Um, no, sir."

"Uh, bad flip phone pictures of napkin drawings of stick figures?!"

"U-u-Uh, no!"

"So just some text upon blog people are going forget about by next week?"

"Y-Yes... ?  W-w-what do you want to do, sir?!"

"Well, I'm going to ask what I pay my marketing team for!  Why haven't we spun this announcement in our favor yet!?  Their customers are our customers, we just need to tell them where to go for the new, proper Controlling Stars product line!  Make those marketing pukes slam out a bunch of stuff on all that social media stuff I pay them for and tell them to do a week long sale for 10% off on the pre-purchases!  The customers eat that stuff up."

"But don't we want to do something about them referencing our trademark, sir?"

"What?  Why?"

"Because people might be confused about who owns the Controlling Stars trademark?"

"What?!  We've had the thing for years now!  We got a website, developers logs, screen shots,  a series of alphas, a working beta, constant feeds of stuff with our trademark stamped on it to all the news outlets, and loyal horde of fans already playing our beta...  Our game is going to be released this year.  It'll take them... what...  two, three... four years to get something out?  If they even bother with doing anything?  By then we'll be in our...  what... second or third run of DLC and ramping up development for the sequel?  I ain't paying those blood sucker lawyers we keep around anything more, for a random blog post!"

"Yes, sir!  Understood!  I'll tell marketing right away!"

"Good...  ..."

"...?"

"...!"

"Yes, sir?"

"Where are my pants?"

Reply #386 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Lakstoties, reply 385

"Where are my pants?"

Well?

Where ARE your pants?

Reply #387 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 386


Quoting Lakstoties,
reply 385

"Where are my pants?"



Well?

Where ARE your pants?



I'm now convinced that Laks could give Deadpool a run for his money.         that entire rant was pure nonsense.

Reply #388 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 386

Well?

Where ARE your pants?

"Did I arrive to office with pants?"

"Umm..."

"Oh..."

 

Quoting Taslios, reply 387

I'm now convinced that Laks could give Deadpool a run for his money. that entire rant was pure nonsense.

Whenever debate fails, the clown may yet prevail.

Reply #389 from StarControl Forums Top

Considering that P&F being in the legal wrong would allow Stardock to recover the costs plus penalties at the end of the litigation, the one that bungled their cost-benefit analysis is not Stardock. And considering that failure to go after P&F when they infringed upon the trademark weakens the mark, the cost of not going after them starts at however much money Stardock has already sunk into expanding the Star Control mark, and goes up from there. If you literally do not want to acknowledge the harm P&F has done, go right ahead, you have nothing but your pride on the line. Stardock has actual, significant amounts of money tied to the trademark, and will respond accordingly.

Reply #390 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting zwabbit, reply 389

Considering that P&F being in the legal wrong would allow Stardock to recover the costs plus penalties at the end of the litigation, the one that bungled their cost-benefit analysis is not Stardock. And considering that failure to go after P&F when they infringed upon the trademark weakens the mark, the cost of not going after them starts at however much money Stardock has already sunk into expanding the Star Control mark, and goes up from there. If you literally do not want to acknowledge the harm P&F has done, go right ahead, you have nothing but your pride on the line. Stardock has actual, significant amounts of money tied to the trademark, and will respond accordingly.


And this is why no company would ever do what Laks thinks SD should have done....

Reply #391 from StarControl Forums Top

So, I see a significant amount of heat, and not much productive discussion, centered around the question of whether the "Star Control" trademark covers just the name (as some believe) or whether it can cover internal features like the aliens (as others believe).  This is a disputed question of law that will end up being decided by the court, and my understanding was that we should avoid asserting answers to legal questions here (especially disputed ones).  Can we agree to disagree on this question - and respect that disagreement - until it actually gets decided?

If we can't, then I'm not sure there's enough room for a discussion to happen; so much turns on that question that people will just keep talking past each other.

Reply #392 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Lakstoties, reply 388

Whenever debate fails, the clown may yet prevail.

Clowns never prevail...in fact the ground-swell of opinion is that even kids don't like them....;p

Reply #393 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 391

So, I see a significant amount of heat, and not much productive discussion, centered around the question of whether the "Star Control" trademark covers just the name (as some believe) or whether it can cover internal features like the aliens (as others believe).  This is a disputed question of law

No it's not....but I'm sure you are hoping it is.

When thinking 'Trademark" think about confusion/dilution - things not solely reliant on the simple 'name on the box'.

Try and see it as Copyright concerns simple ownership, and Trademark concerns commerce.....everything related to commerce.

Reply #394 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 393

Quoting Elestan,
reply 391
This is a disputed question of law


No it's not....but I'm sure you are hoping it is.

I'm sorry, but it is indisputably disputed.  Stardock alleges it in its First Amended Complaint, #28.  Paul and Fred deny it in their response (also #28).  That means that we have two parties, both advised by IP lawyers, who are disagreeing over this question.  If we're to have any hope of calmly discussing the case in any forum, we've got to find a way to handle such disagreements, by recognizing them and agreeing to put them aside until there's a ruling on them.  Otherwise, all we'll get is people trying to shout each other down.

+1 Loading…
Reply #395 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 394


Quoting Jafo,
reply 393




Quoting Elestan,

reply 391

This is a disputed question of law


No it's not....but I'm sure you are hoping it is.



I'm sorry, but it is indisputably disputed.  Stardock alleges it in its First Amended Complaint, #28.  Paul and Fred deny it in their response (also #28).  That means that we have two parties, both advised by IP lawyers, who are disagreeing over this question.  If we're to have any hope of calmly discussing the case in any forum, we've got to find a way to handle such disagreements, by recognizing them and agreeing to put them aside until there's a ruling on them.  Otherwise, all we'll get is people trying to shout each other down.



Elestan, you need to read the list of affirmative defenses in Paul and Fred's response.  At no point anywhere in their response to they counter what the trademark does.   they are trying to nulify the Stardock Trademark and the ensuing copyrights... 

If you really want to argue about something it is whether the Trademark Stardock has registered to is legit or not.   and this is something that is very very hard to disprove especially given all the Stuff SD has DONE with it in the past 5 years.  

Reply #396 from StarControl Forums Top

Ohh~ 
Elestan is here!
I don't know how i missed that

                                                   :rofl:

Reply #397 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 391

So, I see a significant amount of heat, and not much productive discussion, centered around the question of whether the "Star Control" trademark covers just the name (as some believe) or whether it can cover internal features like the aliens (as others believe).  This is a disputed question of law that will end up being decided by the court, and my understanding was that we should avoid asserting answers to legal questions here (especially disputed ones).  Can we agree to disagree on this question - and respect that disagreement - until it actually gets decided?

If we can't, then I'm not sure there's enough room for a discussion to happen; so much turns on that question that people will just keep talking past each other.

Can you then agree that regardless of whether the trademark covers it or not that copyright certainly does not? That is, no matter how you slice it, Star Control games will have Star Control aliens in them even if they are visually represented in a new way and fly in ships with a new take on the weapons and ship design.  There's no way to prevent that from happening.

 

Reply #398 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 395

Elestan, you need to read the list of affirmative defenses in Paul and Fred's response.  At no point anywhere in their response to they counter what the trademark does.   they are trying to nulify the Stardock Trademark and the ensuing copyrights... 

If you really want to argue about something it is whether the Trademark Stardock has registered to is legit or not.   and this is something that is very very hard to disprove especially given all the Stuff SD has DONE with it in the past 5 years.  

Exactly.  Any competent IP lawyer knows what trademarks are for.  Anything that a consumer considers associated with Star Control is potentially protected by that trademark.  The test is likelihood confusion.  If a game comes out and has the Star Control aliens in them, will they believe they came from Star Control? Of course they would.

Thus, the only viable defense is to argue that there is no Star Control trademark.  Which is a fantasy I've seen some fans of PF try to argue in various ways.  That is a very tough road for many many reasons not the least being that Atari was definitely using the registered trademark in 2011 and this was understood by everyone.

Don't take my word for it, take Paul and Fred's word for it:

You can read their emails with Atari here.

Remember: Paul and Fred publicly posted this.  

Email #1: GOG wants to know who owns the trademark to Star Control because without the name Star Control the sales potential is "much less". Describes the split as "code" and [Atari's] Trademarks.

Email #2: Paul responds that Atari owns the trademarks. (again, plural)

Email #3: Paul contacts Atari, asks if they can use the "necessary SC trademarks" (plural)

Email #4: Atari responds, yes, we will let you use the Star Control trademarks. 

The Star Control trademarks, already indisputably active, are explicitly put into commerce on GOG for sale.

Two years later, Stardock acquires the Star Control IP and explicitly assumes this very same agreement.  The games are then sold on GOG without interruption until December 2017.  

And this doesn't get into what discovery has turned up.  This is just what they publicly posted.   

So to recap:

  1. Stardock owns the registered trademark to Star Control (in countless countries, not just the USA).
  2. Star Control has been used continuously in commerce in association with the classic games during the entire time Stardock has owned the IP.
  3. A third party, particularly a competitor, cannot use your mark to create a false association (like, literally calling yourself a "direct" sequel). 
  4. A trademark is designed to prevent confusion between products. You associate your goods and services with your mark to distinguish your goods and services (like aliens and branded features) from a competitor's.
  5. Trademarks control how copyrights are used in commerce.  A trademark doesn't give you the right to redistribute someone else's copyright but it can be used to prevent the copyright holder from using their copyrights in commerce outside the trademark (see item 4).

These 5 items are not complicated.  It's IP law 101.

Stardock is still willing to license its IP to Paul and Fred (provided there is no further escalation -- further use of Ghosts in commerce or attacking us publicly) so that they can make their game.  But given that Star Control: Origins legitimacy has been called into question, Stardock no longer has the luxury of not fully exploiting the IP it acquired.  

IF they really want to make their game, we are not the ones holding them back.

 

Reply #399 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 374
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?

So, I haven't forgotten your question from yesterday, but I'm pushing this one ahead of it because it should be "shorter".

First, I do have to give a bit of background.  When Stardock bought the trademark, Brad jumped on the UQM forums to introduce himself.  By and large, he was well-received, but there were also cautionary words spoken on that thread, indicating the UQM project admin's belief that all Brad had bought was the "Star Control" name, which did not give him any kind of rights to the game universe.

So my first suggestion for what Stardock should have done differently is that if it thought its trademark gave it more power than that, it should have said so up front, to align expectations about the legal situation.  Instead, as time went on, Brad was saying things like this:

my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either.  Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.  The Star Control classic lore are the copyright of Paul Reiche and Fred Ford.  

I post that sort of thing publicly partially because while I own Stardock today, if something happened to me and someone else took over Stardock I don't want anyone to even be tempted.

...and this:

I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens. I believe their rights to be identical to my rights on the GalCiv aliens. Personal, common-law copyright.  Paul and Fred PERSONALLY have ownership of that lore. That is our position and the one we'd be wiling to legally enforce if push came to shove

If you were to base your opinion on those posts, would you say that Brad was only refraining from using the aliens as a retractable courtesy to P&F, or that he was denying and/or irrevocably disclaiming that Stardock had any such rights at all?  What do you think the average reader would take 'lore' to mean?  Speaking for myself, I took it to mean the entire setting, including the alien races, the Alliance, the Hierarchy, etc.

If he then held the views on trademark that he currently espouses, then those posts seem disingenuous, and laid the groundwork for a fundamental mismatch between what he thought Stardock's rights were, and what others perceived his rights to be.  But in my opinion, I think it is more likely that Brad was being sincere back then, but that since the suit started, he's now shifted to a narrative about the power of trademark that's designed to comport with Stardock's legal strategy.

The second (and probably most important) thing that I think Stardock should have done differently is to not claim that the 1988 agreement was still live, without a detailed explanation as to why its various restrictions and termination conditions (2.2, 7.1, 12.1) didn't apply.  Stardock's only explanation seems to have been to assert that because the GoG sales were currently generating enough royalties to satisfy the 2.2 (royalty) requirement, that this somehow cured prior years where those royalties were insufficient.  But the contract has no such cure condition, and there was never any explanation offered (nor has there been since) regarding 7.1 (bankruptcy) or 12.1 (anti-assignment).  It's pretty clear from the tone of the emails that this assertion was the proximate cause of the breakdown in relations with P&F.  Had Brad either acknowledged that the 1988 agreement was dead, or provided a full explanation as to why it was not, things would have stayed more cordial, increasing the likelihood that P&F would have coordinated the GotP announcement with him, thereby both avoiding stepping on the SC:O announcement and allowing trademark issues to be spotted before they went public.

...and with that, I'm out of time again.  Apologies to those to whom I'm not responding, but I'm afraid there are more people requesting replies from me than I have the time for, so I have to apply triage.  For me, that generally means that the most polite question gets answered.

Reply #400 from StarControl Forums Top

Elestan,

Stardock doesn't have rights to the lore.  I no longer am sure who owns that lore other than that it isn't Stardock.  Same for the copyrights.

That's an awful lot of words up there to spread a little FUD. So knock off the bullshit implication that we're trying to use their copyrighted material. Last warning.

 

+2 Loading…