Thx, edited. Hopefully it works now.

I don't want to try incorporating that into the wiki myself for fear that I might misrepresent you (and it would also need to have references added), but if you or someone else would like to help bring in the facts supporting Stardock's positions (with proper references), and point out any improperly supported information that's already there, it would be quite welcome.

For example, your post takes issue with the statements of Paul's PR firm (I do too, by the way).  If you wanted to cite those statements, with links or screenshots, that could certainly go in there.

I'm not going to be giving legitimacy to what is, in essence, propaganda.  Not only is it incredibly misleading, it is very unhelpful. 

I realize you may be trying to be helpful but the effect you're having on the dispute, from what I've seen, is to try to encourage us to shut down UQM (which we absolutely don't want to do) and insist on a clear court verdict in order to make clear how wrong your legal conclusions are.  Nearly all of your assumptions about the case are in error.   

You have seen me "change my position" as if it were simply because it was "convenient" (as if a jury wouldn't see through that if that was the case) as opposed to Occam's razor: We have learned things that aren't public and aren't disclosing them because we still, genuinely hope, to reach some sort of accommodation.   

Remember: We aren't trying to prevent Paul and Fred from making a game (contrary to what some of you guys seem to argue).  This dispute could be over tomorrow with just some licensing. Boom. Done.  Call it UQM II (I'd even transfer all UQM trademark ownership to help) and go do the game. But all the public escalation back and forth (and this includes so-called fans) only makes each side more insistent on going forward.

There is nothing served by having the parties (this includes me) escalating things publicly.  This is why I don't post on UQM anymore about this and why I am sticking to only comments here for Q & A.

Fundamentally: You forget who are the biggest PF fans out there. Us. We're the ones who acquired the Star Control IP and were willing to transfer at cost to help make a new game from PF happen and we can prove it.

You an argue with yourself over and over but it pretty obvious that both sides understood we had, at the very least, the Star Control trademark and even you, if you're remotely interested in having the semblance of objectivity, should understand that trying to go back and make a new "Star Control game" without the Star Control trademark would be perilous.  And Paul and Fred literally said they still had "Star Control plans".  You can't have a Star Control plan without owning the trademark.  If you don't understand that very very basic thing, then you have no business even discussing the topic.  

I had to be chaperoned to the settlement conference because it is well known that I have a hard time putting my fanboyism aside and keeping the CEO hat on (why do you think I'm dumb enough to keep discussing ongoing litigation in a public forum?).  And this is despite the hate directed at me by so-called Paul and Fred fans and Paul and Fred themselves. 25 years of conditioning is difficult to undo. 

I have a duty to the 100 or so Stardockians here, the thousands of Star Control Founders who have been patiently waiting for a new Star Control game and who have paid for it up-front, most of whom could really care less about either side's whining, they just want the game.

 

 

Well said Brad.

Yes....pretty-well the definitive statement where all else is at best redundant...;)

I don't deny that there may be bias there, just as there is bias in the Q&A at the top of this thread.  But I disagree on your wording, because 'propaganda' implies that there is an intent to be biased.  The wiki Q&A's charter is explicitly to be fact-based, so there is a desire by everyone involved to make it a neutral reference.  I actually asked that its release announcement be delayed, because I felt that there was not yet enough input from Stardock's perspective.  The Q&A's outing on Reddit was premature, by an unaffiliated person who happened to notice the work-in-progress.

So, I hope that people will choose to participate, pointing out any bias or weakness, and adding a more balanced perspective.  Anyone who has worked as an editor on Wikipedia should be familiar with this process:  Given sufficient attention and scrutiny from diverse viewpoints, and a commitment to sticking with the facts, rough and slanted articles get polished up until they provide high-quality, balanced information.  That's what we're trying to achieve, but we absolutely need help from the Stardock community to do it.

I think it's pretty clear that I don't want UQM shut down...but what I would like is to have some clarity about Stardock's interpretation of trademark law from a source not affiliated with Stardock.  If you were to post the case law that you think is most relevant, that could do the trick.

I agree, but I believe that P&F were speaking casually and imprecisely there.  That was 2013; at that time there were no legal clouds on the horizon, and they weren't questioning your trademark ownership, just as you weren't questioning their copyright ownership.  I believe that their actual meaning was that they had plans to continue the UQM story in a new game under a different brand name.

Elestan, you answered everything of your in your last sentence...

You don't have all the facts, I don't have all the facts, P&F don't have all the facts, hell not even Frogboy or his team of Lawyers has all the facts, the court case has not gone through every bit of discovery.  Do try to remember the analogy about stories and a 3 sided sword, there's The side of the Plaintiff, the side of the Defendant, and the Truth.  No matter how factual one tries to be yes there will always be a bit of bias and failures in memory, it's just human nature.

I'd suggest taking up a holding pattern and let the courts do their duty... because at this point you have gone way past stating your opinion of IANAL, or your take on the case, or your viewpoint.  Due to the massive amounts of confusion you have introduced I could honestly see either one or multiple parties taking you to court over Liable issues for various reasons.

Ok, so basically it starts with Paul, and Fred getting a job as independent contractors. If there is any mistake nobody ever had a problem with hiring people to build something before. Maybe the standard contract needs to be rewritten. If I understand how things work here they will look at how this contract is normally used in court. Which the company Accolade would normally get to keep the game after it is normally made!

Paul must not of read what Brad said when he bought the Trademark, I did. He claimed that he bought the rights to sell Star Control 1,2, and 3 from Atari while Paul, and Fred kept the original source code to 1 and 2. He had bought the rights to make a game in the Star Control universe while Paul and Fred was going to have to use another title like Ur Quan Masters, but I understand Paul, and Fred had better things to do than protect their 25 year old DOS games. 

Then this would still leave the question about why they wanted the source code to Star Control 3. The rest is guessing from my point!

Not much difference in this case they were still hired to make a product. Paul is going to have to prove they weren't on how my understanding in how court of law normally works. The thing that will be looked at here is how this contract is normally used, and is meant to be used amongst thousands of independent programmers regardless of our logic, and feelings!

I read the email he said anything regarding Star Control. I'm not disputing that they are using different things regarding the Ip. I noticed from that thing you had meread you are claiming that Stardock is claiming to have the copy right to Star Control.2. Please correct this. The disagreement here is what the copyright, and trademark does legally. That is probably why they are both saying IP. This is probably the main reason nobody from here is joining in you guys are disagreeing with a main premise that no one is arguing but you guys are claiming we are saying something we are not! What Paul, and Brad is going to have to show here is that(In Paul's case is that this is not a standard contract, and he wasn't hired to make Star Control; because, if he was then according to everyone he made a product that Accolade bought. In Brad's case is that this was a standard contract for an independent contractor for the day, and that Accolade actually bought a game from Paul, and Fred. This is probably where Stardock is probably strong here!

Oh so you guys aren't claiming that Stardock didn't takedown the games, but there was a delay! You guys need to be clear! Is it you guys don't speak English, but are using a translator that would at least explain why you can't understand terms. Ok I might of not understood the difference but, either; way according to Stardock it is a trademark violation, but if you read the email it was no accident they claimed that Stardock didn't have this right right before they did it. 

This is claiming that Star dock is claiming that they have the copyright which they are not claiming. Some of the other things are stating things that Brad never claimed.

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.
[/quote]This is claiming that Star dock is claiming that they have the copyright which they are not claiming. Some of the other things are stating things that Brad never claimed. This is going off of my non legal expertise memory.

That's very true.  It bothers me that the fans have segregated into different camps that aren't talking well to each other, because neither camp can hope to get to the truth without the other.  That's why I'm engaging in discussions here, where I get more pushback on my statements.  In forums with more of a pro-P&F bias, I find myself more often reality checking people suggesting unrealistic outcomes like SC:O getting cancelled, or P&F walking away with the Star Control trademark.

In general, that could only happen if I said something provably false and harmful, without providing the reader with the basis upon which I made the statement.  I usually try to be truthful, to clearly state the basis for my opinions (especially when they might have implications on anyone's character), and assume people are acting in good faith until I run out of alternative explanations.  And I try to discourage others from being in any way malicious in their statements.

If you were particularly referring to Brad, I'll also note that he's a corporate CEO involved in federal litigation, and has chosen to engage in public debate over subjects relating to that litigation, on this and other forums.  I certainly appreciate his input, but I'm pretty sure that his status and voluntary participation mean that, at least on topics related to the case, he qualifies as a Public Figure.

If they wanted to do it under a different brand name, then why the bloody hell did they associate GotP with the Star Control mark? Why are they trying to cancel Stardock's mark? Elestan, you have continuously tried to excuse P&F from the consequences of their tripping the legal landmine that is trademark infringement when they are owed no such consideration, especially in light of their continued legal action. You have also continued to try claiming some sort of "confusion" can exist between trademark and copyright. Such a confusion does not exist in IP law. P&F's confusion, or your confusion, or anyone else in P&F's camp's confusion, does not change the law and what it covers. None of the contracts that have been posted in the court docs have any confusion, in fact they unambiguously delineate between the trademark and the copyright of the Star Control games. You are reading ambiguity in them where they do not exist, and that to be frank owes more to your apparent lack of familiarity with legal paperwork than with any actual ambiguities in the contracts.

To be perfectly and completely blunt, all of your reasoning, and all of your questioning, is centered around how the law can be interpreted to allow P&F to create a sequel to SC2 solely on their terms. Every argument, every claim of confusion you have advanced, is subordinated to that desire. What I and many others have been trying to get through to you is that such a methodology is fundamentally flawed. The question of whether P&F can create a sequel to SC2 without legal encumbrance is a settled one. They can't, because they don't own the trademark and they need Stardock's cooperation, and Stardock is under no obligation to allow them unfettered freedom to Stardock's own property. Stardock, as Brad has stated, has an obligation to its own employees, its shareholders, and its customers, and as a customer, I would personally be extremely pissed if Stardock placed the desires of P&F over delivering the best possible experience they can to me.

 

Actually, you are wrong.  Here's why...

In my research, I found a case that had many shades of similarity to this situation.  Now... not all the components match, but the themes are very close: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

"Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

 

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public."  Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts."

Summary:  Trademarks don't cover the actual functional parts of the product.  Just the bits used ON them label them.

 

Furthermore, this case was a foundational component of the Lanham Act, most importantly...  The Functionality Doctrine!:

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

"In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

Most importantly:

"In the United States, the “functionality” doctrine exists to stop a party from obtaining exclusive trade dress or trademark rights in the functional features of a product or its packaging. The doctrine developed as a way to preserve the division between what trademark law protects and areas that are better protected by patent or copyright law. Thus, the functionality doctrine serves to prevent trademark owners from inhibiting legitimate competition"

 

"When the aesthetic development of the good is intended to enhance the design and make the product more commercially desirable, trademark protection may be denied because the consumer is drawn to the design. The distinctiveness of the mark serves to identify the product rather than the source, and trademark protection becomes inappropriate. The underlying theory as aesthetics become integrated with functionality, the resulting product strongly resembles product design, which may receive no trademark protection absent secondary meaning.

 

This defense is generally seen in the fashion industry. Clothing brands can only be protected if they've acquired secondary meaning, and most of clothing design is held to be functional and is afforded no protection."

Summary:  Trademark only covers the mark ON the product, not anything that's a part of the product.  Associating the "Star Control" trademark with aspects of the product is NOT protected by trademark.

 

The trademark literally only covers the mark itself to identify the SOURCE of the goods.  Not the product itself, but the source organization.  Nothing else.  Paul and Fred never bought the trademarks, because they never needed to since they weren't planning on titling the work with the trademark "Star Control".  Anything dealing with content is protected by the copyrights that Paul and Fred have.  I've been wondering why it was hard to find cases like Stardock's... And this is why, Kellogg and Nabisco already fought that battle and the when the Lanham Act was created it enforced those findings.  How much more do I need to find to clarify the scope of trademark...

My understanding essentially follows the lines Lak described.  I also like to use the example of generic medication.  When the patent expires, such that the only thing protecting a drug is the trademark on it, generic manufacturers can enter that market and sell the exact same product under a different brand name.

We could certainly still be wrong on this.  There could be case law that's more applicable, or facts specific to this case that would dictate a different outcome.  Talking about those could become an enlightening debate that could change minds.  But many of the posters here have simply been asserting Stardock's legal position as indisputable fact, and that's just not persuasive.

Patents, Trademarks, and Copywrite are all different things.  Rulings applied to one do not apply to the others.

Moderator hat on:  This is a Q & A.  We are not going to have lay people trying to pretend to be lawyers here, Lak.   This will be your final warning on that.  You are welcome to ask questions and state your general opinion.  You are not welcome to pretend to be a lawyer let alone misrepresent the issues involved.

Most of the people here agree with Stardock because A: It's a Stardock site obviously and B: Most of those participating do not share your passion for the issue.  This is not a complicated trademark case.  They literally used the Star Control mark, including the box, to promote their game as the true sequel to it.  

Your entire post, Laks, could be summarized as grasping at straws.

 

 

 

Actually you are wrong, and here is why. You are misunderstanding the holding of the case you cited AND you have a completely flawed understanding of the functionality doctrine in regards to trademark/tradedress law and how said doctrine relates to the facts of the instant dispute.

I'd really like to hear your analysis of how Stardock's trademark to the Star Control product is either utilitarian or aesthetically functional? I'd like you to specify why you believe this doctrine would possibly apply to the specific mark and related facts in the instant dispute?  

I see an awful lot of quoting of information from both you and Elestan but little of it is actually related to the facts of this dispute. You both appear to stumble across something you believe (on its face) supports Paul and Fred, quote it from Wikipedia or other dubious source, and then apply cherry picked facts to get the result you'd like. That isn't legal research nor is it legal analysis. Do either of you even realize there is PLENTY of trademark case law related to electronic software, even specifically electronic gaming software? Why are you quoting only an 80 year old case dealing with the manufacture of CEREAL when there are numerous more useful case holdings since than on this same topic? I know why, it is because you don't know anything! And it is sad you think you do. 

There clearly is not a functionality concern here. This is another one of the posts from both you and Elestan that made me laugh. Please provide some actual analysis of how the "law" you are quoting from Wikipedia applies to the facts of this dispute or stop posting it. Your posts of random snippets of Wikipedia law articles coupled with conclusive statements of how that proves Stardock is in the wrong on such-and-such point is meaningless and annoying to those of us who'd like to read real facts and obtain real updates from Stardock. You have no right to post your flawed legal conclusions on this forum. It is not our responsibility to correct you. Go post your BS on UQM and Reddit. 

 

No, please don't. I'd rather the straw grasping be kept off our forum.  

 

Online Google searching to find anecdotal evidence to support whatever 'side' of an argument you're on is fraught with danger.  You will find evidence for anything....even that the earth is flat....

Best example there is....online medical diagnosis....input any symptoms you like....and it's a hiding to nothing you will 'have cancer'....;)

Hey now, no joking about that... lol, I know a woman who self diagnosed herself with Testicular Cancer and was a sobbing mess right up until there was a room of people who facepalmed and groaned when they finally got it out of her what type of cancer she said she had.  -- Yeah not the brightest bulb but hey...

But honestly for now, with the thread this huge and all over the place, can the info be re-consolidated on the opening thread, nuke the rest, then pin & lock it after linking it to a dedicated discussion thread since there won't be any new info until the court proceedings continue?

 

Honestly, I'm just shocked you are allowing them to post this junk on your forum. I can't think of any other company, in any industry, that has allowed misleading social media posts accusing the company of being liable, much less accusing the company of malicious actions, in relation to a dispute currently under litigation.

You are a rare breed Brad!

I think this pretty much sums up why I can't take you seriously Elestan. This short paragraph is wholly revealing as to your intent and motivation for everything you've been harping on about since this conversation started. If you want to understand their stance on trademark law then pay a trademark lawyer to explain it to you. Stardock already did, and that's where their approach to the matter comes from. But you already know this. However, despite knowing this full well, you want the non-lawyers here to explain to you what their lawyers are doing even though those lawyers quite clearly would have told them not talk about it in public. Worse, you act like they in some way owe you a full break down of this expensive legal strategy... For free. Why should they indulge you?

 

Rhetorical question, let me cut any reply short telling you why I think they shouldn't. Because your question is full of crap. You don't have some casual curious interest in understanding their side of things. You are fishing, looking for fuel to throw on the fire.

I know this because I know you know the answer to the question and why they are taking this approach. Because their lawyers told them to. You also know the answer to the question of if the lawyers are correct in their approach can only be determined in court and in due time will be and you will get that answer regardless of the conversation here.

So by process of elimination, the only point to your question that can be considered productive to either side of the dispute is to find something to pick apart and poke holes in for the opposing side's argument. That is exactly why the lawyers tell their clients not to elaborate on their approach in a public forum. 

 

This is an example of the number one thing I hate about the fanatical corners of any given fandom involved in a dispute. I want to have respect and your side of things but I can't because veiling your argument under the guise of wanting to understand the point of view of the other side is pretty much the single most disingenuous thing you can do in any debate, especially in an open online discussion.

 

If you had any real questions (and you've made it clear you don't) they'd be happy to answer them. That doesn't mean you'll like the answers (I mean I haven't liked some of them, but that's life). If you want to express you don't like those answers that's fine. In fact, if you want to express your general disgust and anger over Stardock being involved at this at all regardless of their intentions that's okay to. It's honest.

But please stop pretending to be a neutral party just trying to understand proceedings. It's detestable. This armchair lawyer act (and it is just an act) needs to stop. The answer to pretty much every angle you've tried to attack here is "because lawyers". Real lawyers. Even if Stardock doesn't agree with the methods or approach the answer is still the same. When you have real lawyers you do what they say. This is not a company that spared the drama of frequent litigation, they've walked through the fire and learnt the hard way the merit of doing letting lawyers be lawyers and doing what they say. You can hate them and disagree with them but at the end of the day, it's their playground.

 

Once again in case you missed it... "Because lawyers".

I mean I'd ask you how you really feel. What your real issue with Stardock owning the trademark is. But at this point, I really don't care about your side of the debate (The over the top ridiculous of the fanbois in this kerfuffle have deadend any sympathy I had for them), so I won't lead you on pretending otherwise.

So, if I understand your argument, you are essentially saying that when Stardock makes public assertions about how some law works, our only option is to unquestioningly accept those assertions at face value, because asking about or trying to discuss the underlying basis for them would be an inappropriate query into Stardock's legal strategy.

If so, I disagree.  In my opinion, when a person or company decides to take its legal assertions out of the courtroom and into a public forum, those assertions become fair topics for inquiry and discussion.  Otherwise it's essentially just trying to give itself a platform where it can argue from authority, and that seems like rhetorical foul play.  Obviously, it's never forced to answer, but if it doesn't even want people asking the questions, then it should confine its legal assertions to its court filings.

Also, just to set the record straight on where I do and do not try to be neutral, I don't claim to be neutral on matters that have the potential to affect the UQM project (this mainly means Stardock's new trademark assertions).  For the rest (P&F's potential infringement of the "Star Control" mark itself, and any copyright issues), I'm content to let the chips fall where they may, and really just want to try to understand them as they're dropping.

And here is the problem with your position. You keep referring to "its legal assertions" as if Stardock's answers are somehow its own interpretation of the law, when most of the questions you keep asking are actually receiving what amounts to dictionary definitions of what the law is. For that matter, most of your questions devolve down to asking what the law is, not what the law determines in the case of Stardock's current legal suit. Your persistence in trying to treat Stardock's answers as some sort of subjective interpretation when they've literally been giving you the rote definition as laid out in statute law and regulations, is what makes your continued question disingenuous. There is no "Stardock's interpretation," not in the questions of what copyright and trademark covers.

If there is only one thing I agree with Brad on, it's going to be that this is a private forum which the public can view and participate in, and Brad can do whatever he likes here*. You and I are free to judge from afar (e.g. Reddit, UQM forums), but participate at Stardock's sufferance.

*As long as it's not illegal.

Wanting to understand other people is disingenious? Really? What else would we be doing here? There's cheerleading and trolling, but if no one is actually interested in understanding and potentially changing their mind, then that's just noise. All online discussion is a fundamentally lost cause, because humans are incapable of changing their mind?

So, tell me, since you're clearly an honorable person and would never engage in such underhanded behavior as empathy or seeking to understand others... what are you doing in a Q&A thread?