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

1,790,254 views 728 replies
Reply #451 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting zwabbit, reply 447
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.

I don't see that in the last few pages of discussion (though I don't have time to search everything).  There are statements of law about things I'm not disputing, such as that a name is generally protected by trademark, not copyright.  But nothing directly addressing the assertions I'm actually questioning, such as how unregistered names internal to a product can become part of brand identity to the point where the brand's trademark can control them.  The USPTO regulations on trademarking names seem to suggest the opposite, which, I think, makes it a fair question to ask for supporting case law.

 

wibblenz wrote:

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*.

I was using 'public' in the sense that the general public can participate here, not in the sense of its ownership.  But you're right in that it's Stardock's forum, and they can set the rules.  If Stardock wants to say that this thread is only for it to answer questions, and that those answers should not be questioned or debated here, I will respect that.

 

[And as an aside, is there any way to quote two different messages (with attribution) in the same reply?  Every time I try, the forum software munges the message.]

Reply #452 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting GMOrz, reply 450
Wanting to understand other people is disingenious? Really?

 

I want to believe that was the result of a genuine comprehension problem otherwise you are really doubling down on the disingenuousness. But on the of chance, you did indeed misread what I wrote just this once I will reiterate. 

It is disingenuous to FEIGN an interest in another's side for the expressed purpose of drawing out the argument and collecting more material from them to cherry pick, misrepresent or otherwise use as leverage to attack their position. Or to put it another way, pretending to want to understand their position just so you can pull the rug out from under them once you know where they are standing. It is the inbred brother of the strategy of pretending to want to open a dialogue about an issue just so you have a platform to attack those you would open a dialogue with.

 

Quoting GMOrz, reply 450
What else would we be doing here? There's cheerleading and trolling..

Asked and answered.

Quoting GMOrz, reply 450
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?

Welcome to the internet. Congratulations on missing the numerous great debates of a last 5 years. You have been spared a lot of noise and aggravation. I mean that sincerely, they aren't even worth looking up. In fact, Stardock's CEO is a veteran of more than one of them... I wonder if he feels anything productive was ultimately gained by either side from all that noise... Other than padding bloggers click counts anyway.

But if you want other examples motivations for abusing the technique in question we also saw it used a lot as a launching platform for sockpuppeting, false flags, smoke screens and general undermining and noise making. To name a few.

Quoting GMOrz, reply 450
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?

Well as is on record I was originally here to call out and bitch about the abuse to the 'creator' nomenclature and I guess to find out a bit more about where things stand. But as that got buried under so much nonsense I lost sympathy for the participants and now I'm mostly just here to point out and lament about the bullshit flooding the place and prevent genuine honest intellectual conversation on the dispute.

 

So you know, pretty much all stuff I already made clear in the post you are quoting from.

 

I mean I guess I'd like to see constructive brainstorming or something on ways this situation can still be resolved as a win win for both sides. But given the size of the chips on various shoulders and the number of gremlins running around underfoot, I'm not optimistic.

 

Quoting Elestan, reply 451
[And as an aside, is there any way to quote two different messages (with attribution) in the same reply?  Every time I try, the forum software munges the message.]

I've taken to editing the source code of the posts. Without going to into too much detail I more or less remove the <div> spam and replace it with <p> tags. The first quote in your post usualy goes in clean so that should show how it should look.

Star Control: Origins
Reply #453 from StarControl Forums Top

Elestan, you are misreading the USPTO document. That document is only with respect to whether the name of a character can itself be directly trademarked. It says nothing about whether a character name can be associated with a granted trademark, you are making an inference that does not exist. In fact that entire article is under the section of "Use of Subject Matter as Trademark," which should tell you it's a question of whether a mark itself would be granted in the first place, it says nothing about what can and cannot be associated with an existing mark like Star Control.

+1 Loading…
Reply #454 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well i for one am here because my number one game is in stardock. My concern on this is where my gaming lies. It really doesnt go beyond that. I feal that brad has treated me nicely over the years as a game developer. There is really not more than that with me. Elastan... would like there to be more. Matter of fact there little project doesnt concern me beyond right, and wrong. Elastan is right about me not changing my mind, but that doesnt really affects things much.

Personally to my opinion i think this post is only here, because paul, and fred created posts first. I can see that elastan... is biased about ur quan masters to, and to my opinion from reading things to i think paul is offering something, or convinced them that Stardock is coming to take their game away. 

My reasoning for not reading up to much on this is from the fact that my phone gives me to many problems zooming in on this that is why i read the wiki it didnt do that with my bad eyes. At home on my computer i would rather play a game. 

Reply #455 from Stardock Forums Top

Brad,

I've been following your games for years now. I own all of your 4X titles. As a fellow dev who also went through some really insane legal issues recently, I can sympathize with the situation. I've been lurking here for quite some time, following the situation both in this forum and in the outside channels (Reddit, etc.)

I just wanted to say that I believe that there won't be a victor here. It doesn't matter what happens and who eventually will come out on the top of the court. I can only see this getting uglier and uglier as the time goes on. Now I don't make claims about who is right here but the internet already seems to have made up their mind on that. Perhaps they are right, perhaps they are wrong. I don't believe it will matter in the end because the narrative is already set and in that narrative, Stardock is the oppressor. It will never change.

I understand that there is a lot of bad blood between the parties. I understand that the damage is done is probably very real and you want to make sure it will never happen again. However, I still think that the best course of action would be still to bring this to a conclusion that both parties would find agreeable. That is my hope. Quite foolish perhaps but oh well :)

+2 Loading…
Reply #456 from JoeUser Forums Top

Quoting barjedzik, reply 455

I don't believe it will matter in the end because the narrative is already set and in that narrative, Stardock is the oppressor. It will never change.

That particular 'narrative' is a small group of people going round in circles on the Ur-Quan Masters Forum with 16,700 'reads' whilst this Forum thread has a half million.

The majority of observers are thus [thankfully] avoiding the histrionics of amateur-lawyer confusion ...;) 

Reply #457 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting barjedzik, reply 455

However, I still think that the best course of action would be still to bring this to a conclusion that both parties would find agreeable. That is my hope. Quite foolish perhaps but oh well :)

 

Man. You say that like they haven't repeatedly expressed that's what they've been working for since the beginning. Or like they haven't reaffirmed they are still trying to with subsequent updates. It doesn't matter if one party is willing if the other isn't. If the narrative is to be believed, Paul and Fred think they have a right to all the chips in the stack. So why should they agree to share with Stardock at all? I mean if they believe what they are saying when they accuse Brad of being a liar and a thief, they certainly wouldn't back down simply for the asking. So I'm curious how you would propose Stardock go about reaching this conclusion. I don't think gift baskets and platitudes are going to cut it.

Reply #458 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Irony it was the oppressors that are the number one backers of linux. The operating system that was sponsered by a community that was there to fight the power.

Most likely if Stardock didnt pick up the Trademark then there would never of been another Star Control Game with Atari taking the game with them closing there doors. Any atari game not bought, and made by someone else just went into oblivion. Oppressors or not.

The problem with oppresion is you cant legally make some one elses game. It doesnt matter who personally made the game. It matters who actually owns the game when this came up. Somebody paid somebody to make games at some at point. With it being so easily to change things in a game this will probably not become a utility issue.

Reply #459 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting zwabbit, reply 453
Elestan, you are misreading the USPTO document. That document is only with respect to whether the name of a character can itself be directly trademarked.

Thank you; that was genuinely useful, and led me to read more deeply into the distinctions between trademark and trade dress.  Which led me to wonder:  Which of those two constructs is Stardock using to claim control over the alien race names?  The fact that they had filed registrations for the names let me to believe that they were trying to directly trademark them.  But if that's prohibited by USPTO regs, then (as I think you were suggesting) trade dress seems like the better fit...or perhaps they are trying to make both arguments simultaneously, just to cover all the bases?

Reply #460 from Stardock Forums Top

Although I don't like stardock as a company very much (they enjoy shadow banning people who criticize some of their sketchier business practices) it does seem like Stardock is in the right in this case and that they're engaging in good faith with the developers.

+1 Loading…
Reply #461 from StarControl Forums Top

Elestan, again, you are not reading that document carefully enough. Note that while it states that solely names of characters cannot be trademarked (and a name of a character is not the same as the name of a fictional species), the document makes clear that this restriction applies when that name is only being used as a character name. If the name is used in a more expansionary way such that the name itself becomes an identifier for a brand or product, a name can simultaneously be used for a character but also be trademarkable.

+1 Loading…
Reply #462 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I wanted to write this earlier, but it got deleted. 

Now as far as dungeons, and dragons buying advanced dungeons and dragons. Another words wizards of the coast buying advanced dungeons and dragons from TSR. 

There is something you have seriously wrong, and is not applicable as far as trademark goes. Now remember i cant remember the other names. Now when this happened toy companies wanted to make campaign settings... in this universe, but werent willing to pay rayalties. They were about to walk away over this issue. Making 3rd edition Dungeon and Dragons a lot smaller than second edition.

To prevent this Wizards of the Coast made a deal with basically everyone to make the Dungeon masters guide, players handbook, and the 1st monster manual licensed GNU. 

Now what some had said that if Wizards of the coast could they would of went after basically a lot, not just one toy company is false because of a survival agreement Wuzards of the coast had with everyone. This is not applicable for any trademark dispute. They chose to water down the treademark to survive.

The problem about using any precedence on a fictional species other than allowing a trademark of it is that is an infinate number of them since anyone can make one, so if i wasnt clear enough there would be no reason to not let you trademark them considering anyone can come up with a new one.

I can think of one example where a company got sued, because they wanted to use someone elses fictional character. When 1st edition advanced dungeon and dragons was originally made there were no halflings they were hobbits instead. The writer of the books of lord of the rings sued them for trademark infringement. They had to find a new name for their hobbits. Thats why dungeons and dragons use halflings, not hobbits because lord of the rings have it trademarked

Reply #463 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You are not entirely correct there Willy,

Wizards of the Coast purchased TSR entirely, not just D&D   They nearly walked away over the royalties because of how TSR had paid Royalties to the authors, which was a dispute that had actually been a thorn in TSR's side since the early 1980s and had caused them to oust Gygax...     and why Gygax still owned a large amount of the Copyrights even if the Trademarks were with TSR.

Either way Wizards of the coast was then purchased two years later by Hasbro simply because Hasbro didn't want to pay royalties for the MTG and DND computer games that they were making under the Hasbro interactive lable, which was then subsiquently spun off to Infrograms later that same year....

It is actually not uncommon for companies such as Disney to buy other companies (Fox)  just to get the Trademarks they want (xmen) before ditching the rest of the the unwanted stuff. 

Reply #464 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 437

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.

That's completely wrong.

They can absolutely NOT sell the exact same product. They can sell a very similar product with the same active ingredient(s), but the other ingredients must be demonstrably different or they are infringing. This can often make quite a difference (positively or negatively) as the different other ingredients can sometimes affect how the active ingredient is absorbed and/or utilised by the body, actually changing the efficacy of the drug. 

Try Losec and then try switching to one of the other Omeprazole clones and you'll see how the slightly different formulation of the supposedly inactive ingredients makes a massive difference.

+1 Loading…
Reply #465 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Astrobia, reply 452

Welcome to the internet. Congratulations on missing the numerous great debates of a last 5 years.

I've been on the internet a lot longer than 5 years. I've had numerous debates, and learned all sorts of interesting things from them. I really don't get what compels you to assume bad faith in someone that is, to me, pretty clearly just trying to find understanding.

The trademark and copyright for SC1/2 used to be pretty well understood by the community as "Atari/Accolade can use the name, and everything else belongs to P&F", so of course us old hats are going to be rather thrown off guard by Stardock's interpretation.

The UQM project was built on the idea that only the words "Star Control" needed to be removed to make a version of SC2 that doesn't violate trademark. I'd argue that the SC3 contracts certainly gesture at the idea that the Orz "belong" to P&F, since why else would Atari/Accolade have licensed them? I'm not saying we're right - we never really had any particular legal backing to our beliefs, it's just how the community understood stuff.

And, really, until Stardock moved to broaden their trademark, there wasn't nearly as much activity. Amateur legal hour got set off because the UQM project *IS* threatened by this new interpretation, and will continue to be until those trademarks are either shot down or licensed to the project. I can understand why a maintainer would consider this a fairly important issue. It's certainly a pretty huge shake-up to a community that has spent the last couple decades thinking it was 100% compliant at avoiding use of any unlicensed 3rd party trademarks.

@Elestan:

I think unfortunately the right call at this point is probably just to hunker down and wait - Stardock has made it clear we're not getting any further clarification from them on the legal status of UQM, so we just need to see if the trademarks survive legal scrutiny and get approved. If they do, I hope someone from Stardock and UQM can meet up and discuss licensing, to ensure that the UQM project can't be shut down. If they're rejected, well, the UQM Project is safe :)

+1 Loading…
Reply #466 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting zwabbit, reply 461
a name of a character is not the same as the name of a fictional species

The example in the regs was actually "The Littles", which is a fictional family, but I agree that there is a distinction there that might (or might not) be legally relevant.

If the name is used in a more expansionary way such that the name itself becomes an identifier for a brand or product, a name can simultaneously be used for a character but also be trademarkable.

Yes, but the examples given in the regs are:

For example, the applicant may submit evidence showing use of the character name as a mark on the spine of the book, or on displays associated with the goods, in a manner that would be perceived as a mark.

These examples are all uses on the outside of the product, that would serve to indicate the origin of the product to a potential purchaser.  But the name "Taalo" (for example) has never been used on the packaging or in the marketing for any Star Control product.  Isn't that necessary for it to have the Secondary Meaning required for it to "be perceived as a mark" for the purpose of this regulation?

Reply #467 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting GMOrz, reply 465

The UQM project was built on the idea that only the words "Star Control" needed to be removed to make a version of SC2 that doesn't violate trademark. I'd argue that the SC3 contracts certainly gesture at the idea that the Orz "belong" to P&F, since why else would Atari/Accolade have licensed them? I'm not saying we're right - we never really had any particular legal backing to our beliefs, it's just how the community understood stuff.

Accolade needed a license from Paul and Fred because they represented that they held the copyrights to the aliens and setting of Star Control II which Star Control 3 wanted to use the specific expressions of.  Without that license, they couldn't have, for instance, (IMO), had the Ur-Quan look at the way they did or have some of the ships look the way they did.

Similarly, Star Control: Origins can't have Ur-Quan that are substantially similar in expression to the Ur-Quan in SC 1/2/3 without a license from the copyright holder.

Let's use an example where people's emotional attachments may let them see a bit more clearly.  Music.

If I want to use music owned by Riku, I have to license it from him same as Paul and Fred presumably did for SC2.  However, if he has a song called "Dance of the Orz" I could contract someone else to make "Dance of the Orz" provided it was not the same song (or substantially similar) to Riku's version. 

Anyone who has ever had to try to find a song on iTunes know how often song titles match.  Why is that? Because copyrights don't cover words or short phrases. And yet, some of you are trying to seriously argue the equivalent of someone composing a song titled "Loved by the Sun" somehow could, via their copyright, prevent anyone else from having a song called "Loved by the Sun".

And, really, until Stardock moved to broaden their trademark, there wasn't nearly as much activity. Amateur legal hour got set off because the UQM project *IS* threatened by this new interpretation, and will continue to be until those trademarks are either shot down or licensed to the project.

Stardock hasn't "broadened" its trademark.  Stardock nor anyone else, can broaden what a trademark is.   It is not an "interpretation" of trademark law (new or otherwise).   

UQM isn't "threatened" because it's not being used in commerce.  I don't understand why you guys fail to recognize how straight-forward this is to answer: WHO would be using UQM in commerce? What is the legal entity that would be using UQM in commerce? Do you have a Tax ID for it? If you don't, knock off the fear mongering, please.

 

Reply #468 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting bleybourne, reply 464

Quoting Elestan,
reply 437

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.


That's completely wrong.

You sound very certain.  Do you have a source?  Because I stopped by the drugstore, and compared the ingredients in Aleve with the ingredients in the store brand generic that was sitting next to it with a tag that said "Compare with Aleve".  They are identical (both active and inactive ingredients).

That really shouldn't surprise anyone, because it's exactly how the difference between trademarks and patents manifests.  Trademarks keep the copycat from copying the brand name/logo/label.  Patents keep them from copying the ingredients.  Once the patent expires, an exact clone (other than the name/logo) is perfectly legal.

EDIT:  I will add that often, there is a difference between name brand and generic medications.  This usually happens when the branded manufacturer revises their formula to include a new additive, or timed release mechanism, or other bit of intricacy that they've gotten a new patent on, and which therefore cannot be copied.  So you get the original brand updated to v2.0, while the generic is copying the original brand's v1.0.  This is commonly accompanied by a big marketing campaign from the brand name maker saying how much better v2.0 is than v1.0.

+1 Loading…
Reply #469 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 468

Trademarks keep the copycat from copying the brand name/logo/label. 

Trademarks exist to prevent consumer confusion.  That is the test.  It's not about "copycatting" something.

 

Reply #470 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 467
Anyone who has ever had to try to find a song on iTunes know how often song titles match.  Why is that? Because copyrights don't cover words or short phrases. And yet, some of you are trying to seriously argue the equivalent of someone composing a song titled "Loved by the Sun" somehow could, via their copyright, prevent anyone else from having a song called "Loved by the Sun".

I don't believe I've argued that copyright could cover a single phrase like that (at least not since I researched it a month or two ago).  I do wonder, though, what the situation would be if someone published an album that copied all of the song titles from an existing album (but put them to different music).  Would it just be the same (if you can copy one song title, you can copy them all), or would the collection of song names, taken as a group, become creative enough for copyright protections to apply?

Reply #471 from StarControl Forums Top

@Elestan

You seem to be trying to overapply certain legal standards again, so I'm going to re-constrain the scope of this discussion.

Whether something can be a trademark has no relevancy as to whether it can be protected by a trademark. The test to be a trademark is not the test that is used to determine infringement. If Stardock can demonstrate a relation between a name that would otherwise be un-trademarkable with a trademark they own, such as Star Control, then even if the name itself is not trademarkable, usage of that name would still be guarded by the trademark they do own. Association to the point of being able to cause confusion is the test here, and the only one that matters with respect to the content inside SC1 and 2 and the SC trademark itself. Therefore, the reference you linked to previously has no impact on whether Stardock can assert its trademark against usages of things like UQ or etc.

Reply #472 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 470

I don't believe I've argued that copyright could cover a single phrase like that (at least not since I researched it a month or two ago).  I do wonder, though, what the situation would be if someone published an album that copied all of the song titles from an existing album (but put them to different music).  Would it just be the same (if you can copy one song title, you can copy them all), or would the collection of song names, taken as a group, become creative enough for copyright protections to apply?

No difference.  

Even recipes can't be copyrighted.

Now, if you trademarked the album itself and someone did that you might be able to make the case that an album with the same songs on it would create a likelihood of confusion into thinking that that album is related to the other album. 

 

Reply #473 from Stardock.net Forums Top

Elestan,

I have been following this thread and your conversation for the last few days. I want to believe that you are genuinely trying to seek some truth here and if so that's a good thing to aim for. However, the way in which you have gone about questioning developers and users alike, neither of which are lawyers and are unable to discuss the details of legal strategy with you, for reasons of lacking knowledge, expertise or having a need to maintain confidentiality is not constructive at all.

We set up the Q&A to help shed light on the situation for those users who are interested in what can be publicly discussed by Stardock for a clarification on how we see things and the reasons we have taken the position we have. However, tirelessly questioning people in circular arguments of technicalities like this is actually very disruptive of the community here.

I do not know if you can see how you come across but a few users have complained about your comments here already. So I am going to have to ask you to please take a break from this thread and let things cool off. In truth, I would actually like to see you commenting in our other threads about the actual game itself that we are making and how it looks to you.

Remember, this is a community, it is not a soapbox for any one user and we value participation across the board here. If you only ever talk about one thing or in one thread it starts to look a little suspicious and people notice that which causes disruption in the overall vibe. I hope you can see what I am trying to say here and dial it down.

+3 Loading…
Reply #474 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 467

Stardock hasn't "broadened" its trademark.  Stardock nor anyone else, can broaden what a trademark is. 

Apologies if I was unclear: Stardock's interpretation of what is covered by the "Star Control" mark is broader than than what the community previously interpreted Trademark law to cover. Thus, "broadened".

It is not an "interpretation" of trademark law (new or otherwise).   

I'm not trying to imply that Stardock's interpretation is wrong, merely that it's different from how the community has understood things for the past two decades. The correct interpretation is still an interpretation :)

UQM isn't "threatened" because it's not being used in commerce.  I don't understand why you guys fail to recognize how straight-forward this is to answer: WHO would be using UQM in commerce? What is the legal entity that would be using UQM in commerce? Do you have a Tax ID for it? If you don't, knock off the fear mongering, please.

I'm not aware of anything that prevents you from demanding that the UQM Project cease use of your trademark. If UQM is using your trademarks, I'm pretty sure you have the legal right to say "Halt! What you are doing is illegal! Cease all use of our trademarked alien race names!" Neither do I think anything compels you to sue.

Some studios are friendly towards non-profit fan projects, some aren't. There's a big difference between "existing at the sufferance of the trademark holder" and "not using the trademark", even for a non-commercial project.

If I'm wrong and there's really nothing stopping the UQM project from re-branding itself as "Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters", advertising itself as a Star Control game, and otherwise using the "Star Control" mark, then that's actually kinda cool news for the project. :)

Reply #475 from StarControl Forums Top

Quoting GMOrz, reply 474

I'm not aware of anything that prevents you from demanding that the UQM Project cease use of your trademark. If UQM is using your trademarks, I'm pretty sure you have the legal right to say "Halt! What you are doing is illegal! Cease all use of our trademarked alien race names!" Neither do I think anything compels you to sue.

Sure.  But that has been the case since 2013 and before that with Atari and before that with Accolade.

It's not a good idea to antagonize fan communities.