Donations for Chapterhouse Legal Defense and third-party parts

[Old_Paladin]

As a civil case, it will probably depend on the actual state the trial is held in.
Some States want an 'unbiased' as possible jury, who screen out any potential 'experts' that could influence the jury; and the jury could be given little to no legal instructions.
There was a criminal trial a few months ago that was declared a mistrial because one of the jury brought a Dictionary so everyone could look up the actual meanings of several key terms of the trial.

[weeble1000]

I think Chapterhouse Studios deserves a chance to defend itself, right or wrong.

Ultimately it doesn't matter which party is right. What matters is that a large company has filed a suit that the defendant may not be able to answer simply because it does not have the means to do so.

There are no public defenders in civil suits. Without the ability to fund a defense, any company faced with a similar lawsuit would be forced to capitulate regardless of whether or not the plaintiff was right, especially in a copyright infringement case. Because copyrights aren't registered, there's little that limits what a party can claim as copyright infringement. The legal system functions on the basis that the defendant has the ability to respond to the allegations.

Chapterhouse Studios deserves the chance to respond. Games-Workshop wants Chapterhouse Studios to stop selling all products and to destroy its molds. Faced with those claims, Chapterhouse Studios deserves a chance to respond.

If Chapterhouse is right and it isn't doing anything wrong, it would be a tragic failure of the legal system to allow the company to die simply because it never had a chance to defend itself.

If Games-Workshop is right it will win its case and its intellectual property will be much stronger because of it.

[Col.Gravis]

Would it be unfortunate if they can't defend themselves, yes - purely because they deserve the right too, but thats the laws fault, not GWs who are using the system as it is set out, as would any individual, firm or other entity who believe themself wronged.

To be clear that is a completely seperate issue from the case specifically though.

As is I'll be damned if I'm paying for there representation, when they are the ones who flew so flagrantly close to the sun. They brought this on themselves at the end of the day and I share the view that they are were and continue to do something they should not have been.

[weeble1000]

As is I'll be damned if I'm paying for there representation, when they are the ones who flew so flagrantly close to the sun. They brought this on themselves at the end of the day and I share the view that they are were and continue to do something they should not have been.

The sun you are talking about Col. Gravis is Games-Workshop's imaginary line of what is acceptable to them and what is not. That line has little to do with the law and everything to do with Games-Workshop's position in the marketplace. Games-Workshop is not using the law to defend themselves, it is using the law to attack what it believes are defenseless competitors. It attacks defenseless competitors so that its claims will not have to withstand the rigor of a defendant's response.

The system is not designed to allow Games-Workshop to file suits that it does not intend to pursue which make claims that it has every reason to believe are overly broad and unenforcible. That is why there are anti-trust laws; because without them the system would be ill-equipped to prevent this type of injustice.

Even if Chapterhouse Studios is wrong, Games-Workshop should not be allowed to threaten litigation without the intention to follow through with it. Even if Chapterhouse Studios is wrong, it deserves the chance to confront Games-Workshop's claims in open court.

If Games-Workshop's claims are valid and enforcible it can only gain in the long run from receiving judgement in open court. But consider this: You believe that Chapterhouse deserves the right to defend itself but don't want to help support them because you believe that the company is in the wrong. What if Games-Workshop files a similar suit against a company that you believe hasn't done anything wrong?

You might say that the day this happens you will support that company. But what if that company does not have the means or the will to even consider a defense? How are you going to help then? With a few swapped paragraphs the Chapterhouse complaint could be filed against any third party bits company.

Chapterhouse Studios is prepared for a lawsuit but it needs additional support to go all of the way. Because Chpaterhouse Studios is in a unique position to even try to put up a fight it is in the interest of the entire community to see that this defendant gets its day in court.

[Col.Gravis]

My first reply just got eaten - so this is somewhat briefer, and probably a bit more brisk for which I apologiese.

1 - If CH has the right to a defence, and GW has just as much right to prosecute for what it believes to be infringement - whether that infringement falls within the law is for the courts to decide.

2 - It is not GWs fault if CH can not afford a defence, they have the right to prosecute afterall. It is the fault of the system. Further it is a very cynical OPINION to assume that the fact that CH may not be able to afford a defence is a primary motivator in the case, and even more so that GW are initiating the proceadings with no intent in following them through.

3 - If it were another manufacturer or third party parts such as Micro-art I would consider supporting them yes, because in that assumed case I don't believe there is a case to answer or legal bases for a challenge. Funnily enough such a case has'nt come about, yet CH's, who have blatently been using GW imagery, trademarks etc, has. Further I don't believe that if CH ceases trading as a result of this we will see GW following up on other third party bits manufactuers (unless of course they start to follow CH's model).

4 - Personally I think you may as well throw your money away.

However if it does come to that and they somehow win, yes there will be repercussions. We will see more cheap third party components certainly, mostly CH quality or worse. However GW will be weakened in the eyes of shareholders and will probably react by returning to only releasing rules for models it can actively produce itself (i.e. we'll get less variety in units etc, though all will have released models). There is also potential for larger corporate entities to take advantage of such a ruling with further positive and negative effects.

Personally I prefer the status quo with intelligent generic third party bits manufacturers, other companies using unique IPs (such as Dysotopia and Warmachine) and GW.

[weeble1000]

I'm sorry your reply got eaten. I hate it when that happens. If I'm writing a long post I sometimes type it in Word and then paste it.

My opinions about Games-Workshop's motivations may seem cynical but they're based on a clearly established pattern of behavior. I believe it is clear that Games-Workshop wants to give the impression that it owns broadly enforcible intellectual property. And it attempts to give that impression even though it knows that its intellectual property is not enforcible in the manner in which it is claimed.

Games-Workshop has had its copyrights narrowed in the past and so it is disingenuous for it to claim ownership of all intellectual property that could exist in its fictional universes. This is, without a doubt, what Games-Workshop is doing. The theory underlying its claimed copyrights is that anything related to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 is owned by Games-Workshop.

Games-Workshop has not limited its claimed copyrights to strictly include the material that it has actually produced in terms of images, sculptures, and the written word. The company is claiming that anything that could have a place within its fictional universes must necessarily be derivative of its intellectual property.

These broad copyright claims include the products produced by any of the many third party miniatures companies, including MicroArt Studios. The fact that MicroArt calls its Mechanicus models "Iron Brotherhood" does not vouchsafe it from Games-Workshop's copyright claims.

Games-Workshop is claiming copyright infringement and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse Studios. This is very clever on the part of Games-Workshop because of a disconnect between the law regarding trademark and copyright infringement and the public's perception of it.

Many people are condemning Chapterhouse Studios and differentiating the company from other third party miniatures companies by stressing the fact that Chapterhouse used Games-Workshop's trademarks when other companies did not. The irony is that Games-Workshop's trademark infringement claims are the weakest and lest significant part of its case. They don't matter to Games-Workshop because given the law and established precedent it will be unable to succeed in its trademark infringement claims against Chapterhouse Studios.

The meat of Games-Workshop's case is its copyright infringement claims and these can be applied to any of the extant third party companies.

We need to collectively look past Games-Workshop's obfuscation and recognize what is going on here. Again, Games-Workshop did not pick on Chapterhouse Studios because it is the one bad third party miniatures company. Games-Workshop's claims are not discriminating in this manner.

I'd like to make an additional point about why it is evident that Games-Workshop deliberately files litigation or threatens to file litigation against small or relatively independent parties. Games-Workshop has not filed suits against its significant, established competitors. This is in spite of the fact that Games-Workshop's claimed copyrights could include products produced by companies like Privateer Press. If Games-Workshop genuinely believed that it was defending property that it actually owned we would see litigation against these parties or cross licensing agreements being negotiated.

You can argue that it is not financially viable for Games-Workshop to get into legal battles with these parties or that it would have a tougher time enforcing its intellectual property against them because they have their own unique universes and game systems. But you're still left with Games-Workshop filing suits or threatening to file suits solely against the little guys because it's cheap and easy. It's cheap and easy because they cannot afford a defense and they have limited model lines that are not associated with the type of firmly established intellectual property that requires a significant market presence to produce.

If it's cynical to believe that this isn't right or fair, sign me up. If it's cynical to look at Games-Workshop's actions, read what it argues, and imagine the implications of it then I think we could all use a little dose of cynicism.

[Aldramelech]

I'm sorry your reply got eaten. I hate it when that happens. If I'm writing a long post I sometimes type it in Word and then paste it.

My opinions about Games-Workshop's motivations may seem cynical but they're based on a clearly established pattern of behavior. I believe it is clear that Games-Workshop wants to give the impression that it owns broadly enforcible intellectual property. And it attempts to give that impression even though it knows that its intellectual property is not enforcible in the manner in which it is claimed.

Games-Workshop has had its copyrights narrowed in the past and so it is disingenuous for it to claim ownership of all intellectual property that could exist in its fictional universes. This is, without a doubt, what Games-Workshop is doing. The theory underlying its claimed copyrights is that anything related to Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40,000 is owned by Games-Workshop.

Games-Workshop has not limited its claimed copyrights to strictly include the material that it has actually produced in terms of images, sculptures, and the written word. The company is claiming that anything that could have a place within its fictional universes must necessarily be derivative of its intellectual property.

These broad copyright claims include the products produced by any of the many third party miniatures companies, including MicroArt Studios. The fact that MicroArt calls its Mechanicus models "Iron Brotherhood" does not vouchsafe it from Games-Workshop's copyright claims.

Games-Workshop is claiming copyright infringement and trademark infringement against Chapterhouse Studios. This is very clever on the part of Games-Workshop because of a disconnect between the law regarding trademark and copyright infringement and the public's perception of it.

Many people are condemning Chapterhouse Studios and differentiating the company from other third party miniatures companies by stressing the fact that Chapterhouse used Games-Workshop's trademarks when other companies did not. The irony is that Games-Workshop's trademark infringement claims are the weakest and lest significant part of its case. They don't matter to Games-Workshop because given the law and established precedent it will be unable to succeed in its trademark infringement claims against Chapterhouse Studios.

The meat of Games-Workshop's case is its copyright infringement claims and these can be applied to any of the extant third party companies.

We need to collectively look past Games-Workshop's obfuscation and recognize what is going on here. Again, Games-Workshop did not pick on Chapterhouse Studios because it is the one bad third party miniatures company. Games-Workshop's claims are not discriminating in this manner.

I'd like to make an additional point about why it is evident that Games-Workshop deliberately files litigation or threatens to file litigation against small or relatively independent parties. Games-Workshop has not filed suits against its significant, established competitors. This is in spite of the fact that Games-Workshop's claimed copyrights could include products produced by companies like Privateer Press. If Games-Workshop genuinely believed that it was defending property that it actually owned we would see litigation against these parties or cross licensing agreements being negotiated.

You can argue that it is not financially viable for Games-Workshop to get into legal battles with these parties or that it would have a tougher time enforcing its intellectual property against them because they have their own unique universes and game systems. But you're still left with Games-Workshop filing suits or threatening to file suits solely against the little guys because it's cheap and easy. It's cheap and easy because they cannot afford a defense and they have limited model lines that are not associated with the type of firmly established intellectual property that it requires significant market presence to produce.

If it's cynical to believe that this isn't right or fair, sign me up. If it's cynical to look at Games-Workshop's actions, read what it argues, and imagine the implications of it then I think we could all use a little dose of cynicism.

Agreed. This is my major problem with all this, Where does it all end? If GW were a bloke in a pub, Id be telling him to wind his neck in

[Lockark]

Dude. Chapter house did steal GW's IP.

[url]http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.browse&category_id=2[/url]

All of thows banners are direct copies of the banners from GW's rule books and source materials. Not to meant at the top of the page they out right state everything they make is for Warhammer 40k/fantasy. That's there whole marketing point.



Do you understand the implications of what will happen if GW allows chapter house to continue?



If chapter house continues to make "Conversion parts meant for warhammer 40k and fantsey", what is to stop them from making "miniatures for use with Warhammer 40k and fantasy"?

Oh wait. I forgot. They already started doing that.
[url]http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/news/29-dooms-day-is-near[/url]



If GW doesn't shut these guys down it means GW WILL lose control over there IP. Other manufactures can start coming in trying to get there cut of the GW pie. What is to stop some other manufactures making sprues of cheap plastic Space marine knock-offs to under cut GW? Chapter house is setting a president that GW can not let continue if they wish to protect there IP.



By your logic I can start this awsome new toy line. I make a action figure with a robe and light sword. I then sell these action figures as "Warrioir figure for use with Star Wars Jedi play sets". Now. Tell me if I will have goerge lucus knocking on my door with a law suit or not.

Think I'm over exaggerating? "Pre-Heresy Scarab Shoulder Pads for Thousand Sons Players"?
[url]http://chapterhousestudios.com/webshop/component/virtuemart/?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage.tpl&pro duct_id=103&category_id=26[/url]

I think not.
C_____C

[eldargal]

It is not stealing IP to use it for descriptive purposes, which is what CHS is those banners are doing, indicating the use for their product in conjunction with other (GW) products.

[chapterhousestudios]

It is not stealing IP to use it for descriptive purposes, which is what CHS is those banners are doing, indicating the use for their product in conjunction with other (GW) products.

Not to mention that none of those banners even was created by GW, they are all Fan Created Banners so GW shouldnt have any claim to them.