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 #401 from StarControl Forums Top

Copyright != trademark. Brad was talking about copyright in that response. That was Brad's position at the time due to the extent of his understanding about who might have owned what. Since then, Brad has made several statements which indicate that understanding has evolved due to new information turned up in discovery, which he cannot publicly divulge and are likely to remain under seal even after a settlement is reached.

And for that matter, the 1988 agreement NEVER granted P&F any rights to the trademark. In fact it explicitly states that the developers, P&F, have NO claim to the trademark, and I quote, "at any time before or after the term of this Agreement." The agreement covers terms and rights to the COPYRIGHT of only the things that are actually physically present in the games, in-game text, source code, and media. If the agreement has lapsed, P&F get their copyright back. They never had any standing to get the trademark, which is what they're infringing upon, which is the grounds on which Stardock is suing them. Brad's lack of response to your questions about it probably amount to the fact that the 1988 agreement is irrelevant to Stardock's case insofar as being a defense against P&F's trademark infringement.

+1 Loading…
Reply #402 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting zwabbit, reply 401

Since then, Brad has made several statements which indicate that understanding has evolved due to new information turned up in discovery, which he cannot publicly divulge and are likely to remain under seal even after a settlement is reached.

This...;)

+1 Loading…
Star Control: Origins
Reply #403 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

The point that seems to be escaping Elestan is that the Names of the aliens are not protected by the Copyright. 

The Trademark also does not grant SD any right to use the LORE or the story from SC1-2

The Trademark does let them use the NAMES  as those are directly associated with what was marketed IE the NAME Star Control which has a Trademark.

Conversly because the NAMES of the races are tied to the Star Control Trademark,  you cannot use them without also using the Trademark.  Especially when you go out of your way to claim that trademark without permission.

+1 Loading…
Reply #404 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 403

The point that seems to be escaping Elestan is that the Names of the aliens are not protected by the Copyright. 

The Trademark also does not grant SD any right to use the LORE or the story from SC1-2

The Trademark does let them use the NAMES  as those are directly associated with what was marketed IE the NAME Star Control which has a Trademark.

Conversly because the NAMES of the races are tied to the Star Control Trademark,  you cannot use them without also using the Trademark.  Especially when you go out of your way to claim that trademark without permission.

One point to help anyone confused on the issue: None of these trademark rights have anything to do with the 1988 agreement.  

The 1988 agreement, in short, was a contract for Paul to make Star Control for Accolade where Paul was allowed to retain copyrights to what he created (IAMAL).  But Star Control, the brand, existed before the game existed.  Star Control became Accolade's space action RPG brand.

I don't think anyone here is unfamiliar with the concept of companies putting their brands on products manufactured under license from others.  You see it every time you go to the grocery store.  Heck, the car industry does it frequently.  Ford used to frequently (and still might) slap its brands on Mazda made vehicles.  Ford didn't own any of the relevant IP in those cars (patents in those cases).  The trademark -- the brand -- is what mattered.

If the 1988 agreement has expired, the only effect is that the licensed works can no longer be distributed (the classic games).  The other effect, which never came into play, is that it would prevent Stardock from creating derivatives of the way the aliens were expressed in Star Control 1/2 (and to a certain degree, 3).

But the trademark, which was the entire point, has nothing to do with the 1988 agreement.  That Stardock also acquired the copyright for Star Control 3 was interesting but similarly irrelevant.  Stardock isn't going to use any of the copyrighted material from Star Control 3 either and it owns that copyright.

Every time I see someone suggest that there's something "unusual" about the copyrights and the trademarks being separate I just shake my head.  It is, literally, the most common software agreement in the industry.  We literally have a term for companies that do this: OEMs.

Did you use Windows Vista? Ever heard of DreamScenes? Yea, that was basically DeskScapes rebranded. We owned the copyright.

Ever got a Dell with a dock ("The Dell Dock").  Trademark owned by Dell, copyright by Stardock.  Even though we "created" it and own the copyright, it's not like we could announce GhostBand the direct successor to the Dell Dock from the creators of the Dell Dock.  Especially if Dell was still actively marketing the Dell Dock.

 

+2 Loading…
Reply #405 from Stardock Forums Top

Hmm... I've been wondering myself how this dispute could have been avoided.

My recap:

  1. P&F announce GotP as the direct sequel to SC2. Stardock supports the announcement.
  2. Stardock's refusal to withdraw the classic games from Steam angers P&F. (Stardock believes the 1988 agreement is still active.)
  3. P&F lashes out. Sends DMCA takedown notices for the games on Steam, hires a PR firm to attack Frogboy and co, publishes blog posts about the dispute. 
  4. Stardock sues P&F for trademark infringement. P&F counter-sues Stardock for copyright infringement. (End)

So, it seems to me P&F's emotions got the best of them. If #3 didn't happen, #4 wouldn't happen as well. Well, P&F might have sued first instead of Stardock at least. Would Stardock have a weaker case because of the lack of public backlash? I don't know. At this point, the public were still happy two games were coming out without any knowledge of the ongoing private dispute.

I understand how P&F felt about #2. They called GotP their "passion project". They've always planned to make a sequel way back then. They tried pitching it to Activision in the mid 2000s but failed. Instead they got tied up working on other projects for Activision, but always wanted to make GotP. I understand their anger after Stardock refused to budge on the sale of the games on Steam, especially since they've already went through the same dispute with GoG and Atari in 2011 and showed Stardock the emails.

That said, I think this really escalated with #3. I don't know if they could have avoided this step. They could have kept communicating with Brad instead, hoping both parties would eventually hash out their differences. Or maybe they felt they couldn't do much else to protect their IP? In my mind, #3 wasn't a last resort type of thing. It had a lot to do with the GoG precedent, and pride.

The appropriate step should have been to NOT go rogue on the internet, and most importantly to consult an IP lawyer for every action they planned to do after being (understandably) angered in #2.

Reply #406 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 405

Hmm... I've been wondering myself how this dispute could have been avoided.

My recap:

  1. P&F announce GotP as the direct sequel to SC2. Stardock supports the announcement.
  2. Stardock's refusal to withdraw the classic games from Steam angers P&F. (Stardock believes the 1988 agreement is still active.)


The appropriate step should have been to NOT go rogue on the internet, and most importantly to consult an IP lawyer for every action they planned to do after being (understandably) angered in #2.

I mostly agree with complaints about the wording and timing of the GotP announcement itself, and with the inflammatory actions of the PR firm.  However, from reading the emails, I think this timeline starts too late.  As I mentioned in my earlier post, communications appear to have already broken down before the GotP announcement, when Brad repeatedly insisted that the 1988 agreement was still active without adequately explaining why.

+1 Loading…
Reply #407 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 406

when Brad repeatedly insisted that the 1988 agreement was still active without adequately explaining why.

Brad has no cause to 'adequately explain why' to anyone on this [or any other] forum.

There's only one person he would be required to do any explaining to .... and he has a Legal firm to manage that, as/when/if the time comes.

Last I checked the only person on this Forum/thread who is at all involved in the process is - Brad.

Reply #408 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 407
Brad has no cause to 'adequately explain why' to anyone on this [or any other] forum.

Agreed, but I was talking about Brad's 2013 2017 email conversation with Paul, not any discussion on this forum.

Reply #409 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 408

Agreed, but I was talking about Brad's 2013 email conversation with Paul, not any discussion on this forum.

Which may or may not have been complete and/or even in context.

You are not a party to the communication[s] plural, and, just as with the embarrassing situation of one party publicly releasing CONFIDENTIAL information [that without formal corroboration cannot and will not be verified] resulting in a gag-order, you really won't be so there is absolutely no reason to keep speculating....

...other than to continue to spread FUD.

And really..... no-one is ever going to get all warm and fuzzy were you ever to "I mostly agree..."

There can be many 'opinions', but the truth is - just about ALL of them do not matter. 

Reply #410 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 408


Quoting Jafo,
reply 407
Brad has no cause to 'adequately explain why' to anyone on this [or any other] forum.



Agreed, but I was talking about Brad's 2013 email conversation with Paul, not any discussion on this forum.

How is the onus on me to explain why given this conversation:

Reply #411 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 405

I understand their anger after Stardock refused to budge on the sale of the games on Steam, especially since they've already went through the same dispute with GoG and Atari in 2011 and showed Stardock the emails.

Correction, they never showed Stardock the emails with Atari and GOG prior to the DMCAs.

Reply #412 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard, reply 411


Quoting tingkagol,
reply 405

I understand their anger after Stardock refused to budge on the sale of the games on Steam, especially since they've already went through the same dispute with GoG and Atari in 2011 and showed Stardock the emails.



Correction, they never showed Stardock the emails with Atari and GOG prior to the DMCAs.

I guess I flubbed the timeline. Goes to show just how important it is to clearly communicate your grievances when it comes to matters like these before escalating. I understand P&F didn't have to and weren't required by law, but in my mind Stardock deserved at least the courtesy to be told P&F's interpretation of their IP rights and what they think Stardock's SC IP rights are when they acquired it from the bankruptsy. Keeping a studio in the dark when it's already spending millions to develop a game with contested IP rights is bound to cause problems.

But then this isn't really about Origins or the trademark- at least in the beginning. In the beginning this was solely about the classic games' copyrights. If they focused on clarifying their rights and kept mum about it to the public, this dispute wouldn't exist - not unless Stardock refuses to take down the games... Still, involving the public about this private spat was not wise.

Reply #413 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 410
How is the onus on me to explain why given this conversation

My apologies; I mis-spoke on the date.  I was thinking of the October 2017 emails between yourself and Fred, where relations broke down while discussing the 1988 agreement.  As a partial response to Taslios' earlier question, I'll say that one of the things that made me shift my views away from Stardock is the way this conversation ended up going, so I'd love to be able to understand it better.

So, I'll note my assumptions first:  Given that this agreement was clearly becoming a point of contention, I'm assuming that you and your lawyer had very carefully reviewed the 1988 agreement by this point, such that you knew, at least, that:

  • There was a provision (7.1) terminating the agreement in the event of a bankruptcy.
  • Under section (2.2), the passage of any year in which Paul didn't get at least $1000 in royalties would have ended the agreement (presumably unless there was a record of an advance that it was netted against).
  • I'm also assuming that because you were a Star Control fan, you knew that there wasn't much going on with Star Control other than UQM between 2000-2010.  GoG wasn't founded until 2008, so there couldn't have been GoG sales prior to that year.

I welcome correction if any of these assumptions are incorrect.

So what confuses me, first of all, is that unless you actually had records of the royalty checks in front of you, you had to realize that there was a very real chance that one of your predecessors missed a year of payment. Yet you repeatedly insisted to Fred with complete certainty that (2.2) was still satisfied.  Why did you do that, if you didn't have proof?  If you did have proof, why haven't you shown it?

The second point of confusion is regarding the (7.1) bankruptcy clause.  Your lawyers had to have seen it, given that you bought the agreement at a bankruptcy auction, so I would have expected to see that addressed in your argument to Fred.  But there's no mention of it.

Finally, because you're also pretty knowledgeable about IP law (I don't deny that), it seems like there's one other thing that should have made you question the situation:  The 1988 agreement was an exclusive copyright license.  If it was still active, it would have been blatantly illegal for P&F to release the source code, so there's no way that the UQM project could have ever been created.  Did you think that the UQM project was illegally founded?

+1 Loading…
Reply #414 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 413

Why did you do that, if you didn't have proof?  If you did have proof, why haven't you shown it?

Kindly read #407 once more.

Frogboy has no cause to include casual observers in the details of a course of action that does NOT concern said casual observers.

He does not exist for the sole edification of a doubting Thomas.

Reply #415 from StarControl Forums Top

Elestan, not getting a check doesn’t mean royalties weren’t paid.  Often times, when there are product returns, a credit is built up and no checks are sent until that credit is balanced. But royalties are still being paid sod applied to the credit.  

When CompUSA closed, we stopped getting royalty checks from Ubisoft on The Political Machine because before CompUSA closed, they shipped back all their stock. The game was still selling in small quantities at EB and elsewhere and I’ve seen it in bargain bins at places like Meijer up until recently but it’ll never sell enough to overcome the credit built up from CompUSA closing.

Moreover, remember, it was already being sold on GOG when we acquired it and The only agreement we had was the Atari/GOG agreement that was for all three games. 

In short, as a lay person, when you combine Paul’s 2013 confirmation that the publishing rights were active with the fact the games were being sold we had no reason to think the license had expired.  Now, that said, there are other reasons to show that the agreement hasn’t expired but I’m not sharing that publicly.  

IF PF had mentioned to me the Atari conversation they had had or shown me those emails, that would have also changed things.

That said, none of that has anything to do with the trademark.

The total amount Stardock made on the classic games on Steam was $8,707.  At the time they went public with their anger, that amount might have been..$2,000. Compare that with the damage already done to us by claiming to be a sequel to our mark — and I grinned and supported them publicly even as we privately worked to find some way to paper all this over. 

Remember: We want their game to be made. But it has to be done in a way where there is no confusion as to who owns Star Control. 

Reply #416 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 415
In short, as a lay person, when you combine Paul’s 2013 confirmation that the publishing rights were active with the fact the games were being sold we had no reason to think the license had expired.

Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark. It's akin to Stardock's support for the "direct sequel" announcement of GotP; and your past emails *confirming* P&F own all copyrights for SC1-2. (Again, with context this was only an initial belief on your part)

Now, that said, there are other reasons to show that the agreement hasn’t expired but I’m not sharing that publicly.

I respect your silence on this. My only pedestrian guess is the expiry clauses and the subsequent turnover of IP rights were illegal... somehow. Other than that, color us clueless.

Reply #417 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 416


Quoting Frogboy,
reply 415
In short, as a lay person, when you combine Paul’s 2013 confirmation that the publishing rights were active with the fact the games were being sold we had no reason to think the license had expired.



Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark. It's akin to Stardock's support for the "direct sequel" announcement of GotP; and your past emails *confirming* P&F own all copyrights for SC1-2. (Again, with context this was only an initial belief on your part)


Now, that said, there are other reasons to show that the agreement hasn’t expired but I’m not sharing that publicly.



I respect your silence on this. My only pedestrian guess is the expiry clauses and the subsequent turnover of IP rights were illegal... somehow. Other than that, color us clueless.

 

This is the original 1988 agreement.   One of the things that has never been posted but might exist is a subsequent agreement or refiling when SC3 was produced  Any agreement that modifies the original that was signed by both parties would supersede the original.

Mind you, the registered Trademark with a traceable SN and Issue date is from 1996  Which would also match the sale date of SC3  Not SC or SCII..

There was without any doubt an earlier Trademark, but that mark was modified to create the 1996 mark rather than extended.

 

... damnit I keep internet lawyering I need to stop...

Reply #418 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting tingkagol, reply 416
Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark.

I completely get where you're coming from here, because I was the first person to publicly call attention to how unhelpfully vague Paul's reply there was.  Brad had given no indication that he had even seen the 1988 agreement before F&P's countersuit in February, so my theory at the time put the majority of the blame for the confusion on Paul.  I now believe that I was quite mistaken.

What changed my mind?  New information. 

First, it eventually became clear that during the time that I was commenting about how it seemed like Paul had blindsided Brad with the 1988 agreement, Brad had actually had it since at least 2011.  Not that Brad was obligated to correct my error, of course, but there was no legal advantage to letting that misapprehension go uncorrected, and it would have been a good demonstration of forthrightness if he had set the record straight.

Second, I eventually realized that there were two licensing agreements relating to the franchise:  The 1988 exclusive one, and the 2011 non-exclusive one (with GoG).  And the wording of Brad's 2013 email was not specific enough to make it clear that he was talking about the 1988 one - he didn't mention exclusivity, or control over sequels, or any of the powers that would put P&F's backs up in the later 2017 emails.

So my current theory is that there was an honest misunderstanding in 2013:  Brad thought he had told P&F that he had the 1988 agreement, but they thought he was talking about the 2011 agreement, which they didn't really care that much about.  So they didn't object, and the misunderstanding was not discovered until the 2017 email exchange.

+2 Loading…
Reply #419 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Taslios, reply 417
This is the original 1988 agreement.   One of the things that has never been posted but might exist is a subsequent agreement or refiling when SC3 was produced  Any agreement that modifies the original that was signed by both parties would supersede the original.

Actually, there were three addenda to the original agreement, and they were all posted as Exhibits with P&F's counterclaim:

Reply #420 from StarControl Forums Top

And none of those documents ever gave the trademark to P&F. The trademark remained the property of the publisher, not P&F. Control of the trademarks constitutes control over any future sequel, since the trademark owner is the only one with the right to release a game associated with the trademark. If P&F want to make another game in the Star Control franchise, they need the permission of the trademark owner, which at this point is Stardock. Their copyright is useless in this regard, since it only covers content in the games themselves and only the specific representation in those games.

+2 Loading…
Reply #421 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Ok what are you guys reading it is not what i'm reading. to recap

1. Somebody made a post that asked to for Stardock to make Galactic civilizations like Star control. Leading a lot of people talking about the game,and Stardock buying Star control; while, suggesting that Paul make his sequal just calling Ur Quan Masters, Not Star Control. This is when Paul should of announced that Stardock didn't buy anything.

2. Stardock makes Star control talking with Paul getting his approval.

3. Paul for some reason(My guess he is considering making Star control 4, but is would actually have to be called Ur Quan Masters 2 due to Stardock having bought the trademark) asks Brad if he could give him the code to Star Control 3. Brad says he owns Star Control 3 lets talk. I think things would have been different if they would have talked here. Think Ironclad Sins of a solar empire. Stardock's Star Control Ghosts of the Precursors, by Paul, and Fred. This shipped has sailed; because of the next steps.

4. Not sure if the next parts are in order. Paul announces that they are making a sequel to Star control 2 called Star control Ghosts of the Precursors.

5. Now as far as Brad knows he owns the trademark. I went to school it is customary to sign a contract when you program for the company agreeing that anything you program at the office stays at the office. That means that anything you make at work is there's if you make anything else you have to be careful not to use your work code. Brad had the contract; which is a standard contract. It it is a standard contract that everyone uses then he would have no reason to think different. Quit accusing him of being deceptive here. We are lamens afterwards. First don't call your new game Star Control since we own the trademark, second we need to communicate when it would be a good time to announce your new game, so it don't interfere with our game. Identifying that they have the Ip. Up to this point it has been working together. My guess this has been 4 years, and 9 million dollars later. I could be off on the price.

6. This step definatly shows Paul at fault. He emails back that Stardock doesn't own the Ip they do. They are going to announce the new Star Control game. To not use the Star Control logo. If the game is already using the Star Control logo remove it. They have noticed that they are selling all three Star Control games on steam; which they have no right to, remove them. Forgot the legal name thingy. This is why Brad couldn't wait, and see without being sued. This is no misunderstanding, but a deliberate announcement that they are calling their new game Star Control.

7. Paul waits until Stardock released their new trailer to announce that they are coming out with a true sequel called Star Control Ghosts of the Precursors. Having identified their intentions to Stardock. Stardock takes down the Star control games at least long enough to figure out who owns what; while asserting that they own Star Control 3, but wanting to leave the ur quan master community alone. The ur quan master community is a group of people who wants to freely work, and distribute Star control 2.

8. Feathers ruffling as both sides are arguing with lawers about who owns what. With both sides stepping up to the plate leads to Stardock trademarking everything; while agreeing to not touch, but help out the Ur Quan masters community.

Reply #422 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 418


Quoting tingkagol,
reply 416
Paul's e-mail was certainly confusing. The lay person would assume it was confirmation, but in my mind given the context it seems Paul was deliberately keeping Stardock in the dark.



So my current theory is that there was an honest misunderstanding in 2013:  Brad thought he had told P&F that he had the 1988 agreement, but they thought he was talking about the 2011 agreement, which they didn't really care that much about.  So they didn't object, and the misunderstanding was not discovered until the 2017 email exchange.

Dammit. I keep forgetting about that particular confusion, especially when that e-mail is taken out of context - it can really catch the reader off guard. But certainly that theory hasn't been set in stone or confirmed by Paul's party.

Reply #423 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 421
Ok what are you guys reading it is not what i'm reading. to recap[...]

I'm sorry to say that this is pretty inaccurate - not only does it not match Paul's version of events, but it doesn't match Stardock's, either.

1.  I think this starts too late in the timeline.  If you really want to understand the case, you need to go back to 1988, to understand the timeline for the production and release of the original Star Control games, how the UQM project came to be, and how the IP changed hands from Accolade to Infogrames to Atari to Stardock.  I don't think that making GalCiv like Star Control was ever a real factor:  They are very different games, with different flavours of fun.  I do agree that it would have been very helpful for Paul to make his IP claims more clear, earlier.

2.  Sure, but note the 2013 misunderstanding.  If Paul had known in 2013 that Brad was claiming the exclusive rights to the old games, I'm certain that there would have been a major disagreement.

3.  This is pretty much completely wrong.  SC3 was, by most accounts, a greatly inferior game that Paul, Fred, and Brad have all mocked on multiple occasions - it's one of the few things they agree on.  P&F did want to eventually make a new Star Control game, though, (whether called "Star Control" or not) - they even tried a petition in 2007 to get Activision to let them.

4. Paul's announcement was on October 9, 2017, but he never tried to call the new game "Star Control".  It was just called "Ghosts of the Precursors".  He did initially refer to it as a sequel to Star Control 2, but later edited the announcement to call it a sequel to the Ur-Quan Masters.

5. You're correct that software companies generally own what their employees create on the job.  But when the earlier games were created, Paul was not an employee of Accolade, and the IP rights for the works he created were governed by the specific contract that I linked in my earlier post.  Brad received the records of that contract when Stardock bought Atari's assets.

6.  It's important to note that "IP" can generally mean both copyrights and trademarks, so the language can be a bit confusing.  When Paul is talking about "IP", he's usually talking about the copyright.  When Brad talks about "IP", he's usually talking about the trademark.  That's important here, because Paul's original contract gave different ownership to the trademark and copyright.  So Paul is not telling Brad to remove any logo; he's telling Brad not to use any material covered by his copyright on material from the earlier games. 

7.  Again, Paul never said that he was calling his new game Star Control, but rather (initially) a sequel to Star Control.  Stardock doesn't take down the games at this point; there is a delay of at least several weeks. 

As for the UQM community, the way I see it, UQM isn't distributing Star Control 2, but rather is distributing the game that was part of the Star Control 2 product.  That may sound like a thin difference, but it's much the same as how a generic drug manufacturer can distribute the exact same medication as a brand name manufacturer.  Stardock probably disagrees with this view.

8. This seems accurate.

You might want to review the timeline at the start of this thread, but if you would like to get another perspective that's not directly from one of the litigants, I would also suggest looking at the fan-created page about the dispute. 

Incidentally, we would love to get more input on that page from people familiar with Stardock's positions - just make sure to supply references for anything you add.  Everyone is also welcome to double-check the references that are already there, and make sure they hold up.  If you want to dispute something, comment on the associated talk page.

Reply #424 from StarControl Forums Top

Elestan, the “fan created” page is a Paul and Fred fan created page and is filled with Internet lawyering and lay person legal conclusions.  I looked through it and it could be summed up as a tremendous amount of noise about very tiny issues. 

I’ve covered the legalities in post 259. 

https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/11/#3713501

 

 

 

Reply #425 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Frogboy, your link is broken ;)

 

 

Looks like you fixed it ;)