Chapterhouse Motion to Dismiss

[Old_Paladin]

To the responses about context and intent.
I'm pretty sure you're actually wrong about this; results are never taken at face value, or in a void limbo or nexus. The events leading up to those results are looked at and taken into account, even before a verdict and extent of punishment.
A person isn't charged with "killing a persons" they get charged with First or Second Degree or Manslaughter.
Possession of Stolen Goods (or possession of narcotics) is a crime; but if the events leading up to someone coming into possession of those goods show that they were planted, or they had no legitimate way to know they were stolen/there, tends to have a verdict of not guilty.
By your explanations there should only be a single crime of murder, and only sentencing would change. Or one should be found guilty of possession (the actual crime), but given no other penalty as intent and context should reduce it.
I've seen far too many cases come down directly to context to believe that you just look at two whole pictures and that’s how judgment is made.


@Weeble: I agree with pretty much all those points to an extent.
To clarify my feelings once again; I think chapterhouse did make several original or generic pieces (most of the shields, probably most of the hammers some of the helmets, the actual sculpts of the 'Nid bits) some of the things could have been generic (the Tau heavy walker several of the shoulderpads) but where clearly labeled and sold with copyrighted names/groups, and some things are so clearly stolen I'm surprised people even argue about it (several of the shoulderpads, the jump-pack, the Eldar Farseer and Warlock, and the 'Doom of Malantai').
And a lot of this case does simply come down to labeling; chapterhouse had no right to call and sell their products by GW names; as they didn't say "*original name* piece, that could work with *GW name*" they just sold things as "Eldar Farseer," "Fleshtearer Shoulderpad," "Armour for a Mk.1 Rhino," "Doom of Malantai."

Edit: Except I disagree with your post about 'art' having to only be considered in there entireties. I've seen musicians win a case where other musics have only included 4 seconds of their work. You can sue a company that has made a collage of many people, but included you without your permission.
A full side-by-side comparison would be a bad idea; but a faded side by side that picks out the railguns, burst cannons, symbolic knee joint (the Tau 'circle' that’s seen on all their pulserifles and usually hidden somewhere on most their models), along with the rules to go with the model. There's no single exact thing that condemns the walker, it's all the smaller things together.

[Old_Paladin]

On the actual topic of the Motion itself.

Does anyone actually know what the Judge ruled? Was the motion granted, denied or the alternative of GW having to resubmit the specifics of the litigation?

[harrybuttwhisker]

Criminal and civil cases have a different emphasis on intent so your examples whilst valid for criminal courts are not in a civil case. Plus there is also an issue of how original the works GW is claiming to have a copyright is. For instance the tau symbol is in essence a stylised scarad. A symbol that has been around for quite some time. Eldar is not an original name either, nor are virtually every character name in GW codex's the majority coming from various religious texts. This is were the naming of there products become contentious some of there trademarks are indeed inviolable and were infringed. However chapter house seem to have cleared there site of these, so they have in essence acceded to the cease and desist they no doubt received regarding this. Any court would be loathe to interfere in a situation were one party has responded by compliance to such a matter and it would be seen unfavourably that having been successful in your cease and desist to then try and retrospectively sue (effectively withdrawing your consideration in such a legal arrangement), this could be viewed as breach of contract on GWs part.

As for the miniatures themselves this is a different kettle of fish, there is case precedent in the USA to allow someone to manufacture a good for use with an existing product. It is reasonable therefore that said item be allowed to incorporate functional elements as necessary for it to be used for said purpose. Therefore the basic shape of a spacemarine shoulder pad is fair game. Any insignia on said pad can only be protected where it is sufficiently original and distinct. Therefore squad designation markers seem fair game as I doubt any would fall into that category. Onto chapter markings, many of these are based on medieval and military heraldry and thus would fail on originality and be fair game. The alleged protection of the isignia claimed would be tested and possible be enshrined in law as being null and void, GW wouldn't like that.

The other example being the SAW is that when put to the "laymen" test, if I were the defence i would present pictures of tachicoma and other anime walkers (such the walking battle fortresses) and ask wether they associated this quadruped design with SAW more strongly than the bipedal humanoid design of a battlesuit. I'm fairly certain I know which way the decision would fall. As GW could Snot sue on the anime producers behalf they would have to rescind that claim in that area.

Like I said specificity is very important, GW needs to identify which products it can provide specific examples of it's product they can prove infringement on and drop the other claims. Then they hope the court awards sufficient damages based on those products to shut CHS down.

I'm not a supporter of CHS way of conducting themselves, they should have relied on producing sci-fi accessories suitable for table top miniatures and used viral advertising via forums to spread word of there products. Instead they stuck there head over the parapet by getting greedy.

Personally I'm hoping in essence for a split ruling one that punishes CHS for any actual infringements but one that clearly defines the boundaries of GWs domain so there is a clear guideline for those that want to provide good aftermarket parts in a responsible fashion.

There is plenty pie to go around, just look at the aftermarket parts for mecha models in japan. It just relies on mutual respect between all the companies involved. Big companies need to not bully small firms and stifle creativity, small firms need to rest on there originality and flexibility that cottage industries have and not to dip into the big companies pockets.

[wittdooley]

Personally I'm hoping in essence for a split ruling one that punishes CHS for any actual infringements but one that clearly defines the boundaries of GWs domain so there is a clear guideline for those that want to provide good aftermarket parts in a responsible fashion.

I'm actually hoping for this, as well. The thing that has grated on me so much with this issue is the arrogance and audacity in which Chapterhouse has operated. The fix would have been as simple as not using Games Workshop names on their products. EVERY OTHER bitz site does this. To me, it's an arrogant statement that Chapterhouse made with their disdain for the common practice.

Further, their audacity to ask for donations for their legal defense really peeved me, in direct relation to this. You wouldn't need legal defense if you played by the same understood rules as Micro Art Studio, Max Mini, etc (most of whom aren't even in the US, and therefore would have been harder to prosecute!). I do think it's important that a boundary is established in terms of what GW can and cannot claim as their own.

[weeble1000]

On the actual topic of the Motion itself.

Does anyone actually know what the Judge ruled? Was the motion granted, denied or the alternative of GW having to resubmit the specifics of the litigation?

The motion was entered into the record on the 3rd. It hasn't been ruled on. The most recent activity thus far is a notice of appearance for Scott R. Kaspar representing the plaintiff entered into the record on the 9th. Kaspar is a Foley and Lardner associate in the Chicago office. Interestingly, Mr. Kaspar's bio says that, "Mr. Kaspar is dedicated to pro bono work and has assisted legal services such as the Chicago Volunteer Legal Services and the Lawyers for the Creative Arts."

The LCA is a Chicago-based organization dedicated to locating pro-bono counsel in defense of the arts. From the LCA website:

"Lawyers for the Creative Arts provides free legal service to all areas of the arts— the visual, performing, entertainment, literary, arts education and more. We help individuals as well as for-profit and not-for-profit organizations with business issues, contracts, copyrights, trademarks and many other legal areas."

I wouldn't be surprised if Chapterhouse Studios received assistance from the LCA or a similar organization in order to get pro-bono representation from Winston and Strawn. The fact that Foley and Lardner touts Mr. Kaspar's pro-bono work doesn't really mean anything, but I often find the interweaving network of legal relationships interesting.

For example, I also have it on good authority that Mr. Moskin at Foley and Lardner knew that Chapterhouse was cultivating connections that would likely lead to serious representation before Winston and Strawn got involved in the case. Tellingly, Mr. Moskin decided to ignore this forewarning and proceeded to provide Chapterhouse with the options of fighting the lawsuit or going out of business. Given those choices, Chapterhouse really didn't have much to lose by fighting back. Moskin simply figured that Chapterhouse didn't have the means to put up a serious fight.

This is one of the things that makes this whole situation so repugnant to me. Nobody figured Chapterhouse could do anything about the lawsuit, so the company got abused with a false sense of impunity. But what Games Workshop and Mr. Moskin failed to realize is that in this tangled world of personal, professional, and legal relationships you can't take things at face value. It turns out that Chapterhouse knows somebody that knows somebody that applied the right amount of influence to get Chapterhouse solid, affordable representation. Now the one-sided fight that Moskin expected has turned into the legitimate legal battle it deserves to be. This is the essence of bullying: taking advantage of someone because you think they're too weak to fight back.

I hope that Games Workshop will learn from this experience.

[wittdooley]

Affordable of course meaning free?

[weeble1000]

The problem with distinguishing Chapterhouse Studios from other third party companies like MicroMark is that the "rules" being played by are fictional rules invented by Games Workshop and enforced by an environment of systemic legal intimidation.

Just because everybody else goes out of their way to appease Games Workshop simply because they don't believe it is worth it to argue for their rights does not mean the one company that does take advantage of its rights is in the wrong. If anything, those other companies are contributing to the fallacious interpretation of copyright and trademark laws put forward by Games Workshop. Now, I can't blame them. Just look at what happened to Chapterhouse Studios. It sucks to get sued. It sucks a lot. For most small companies it is a death sentence no matter who is in the right.

Games Workshop does not get to dictate the law just because it is a big company with lots of money. That is the point of volunteer organizations like Lawyers for the Creative Arts. Why creative arts? Because this is a field in which individuals or small companies come into contact with large companies on a regular basis. If one simply relies on the good nature of his fellow man, the lopsided nature of these interactions would mean that the rights of individuals would get trampled on a daily basis and large corporations would be able to dictate the terms of any interaction.

Games Workshop sued Chapterhouse Studios with the impression that it would be able to dictate terms. Mr. Moskin's behavior up to this point is clear evidence of that. Nobody thought that Chapterhouse would be able to respond. Why do you think the complaint was so broadly unspecific? It wouldn't have been if Games Workshop and Mr. Moskin thought that Chapterhouse could afford to pay an attorney to seriously litigate this case. A refutation of the underlying logic of the complaint is an inescapable result of serious litigation.

Everything on the part of Games Workshop and Foley and Lardner up to this point has been designed to frighten and intimidate Chapterhouse Studios with impunity. I think we will see a very different type of response going forward. From this point forward Winston and Strawn will be sitting on the opposite end of everything submitted to the Court by the plaintiff, waiting to pick it apart and turn it into an advantage at trial. If Chapterhouse was actually paying Winston and Strawn, the company would already be bankrupt, and that is why Games Workshop believed it would treat Chapterhouse Studios the way that is has.

[weeble1000]

Affordable of course meaning free?

Obviously. You can't get more affordable than free. And honestly, with the cost of litigation the way it is, free is about the only way it is affordable for a small company like Chapterhouse Studios. Chapterhouse will still be out of pocket for a variety of expenses though, but I gather that with the support of the community fees like this won't be an issue.

[Old_Paladin]

Weeble, this is my main problem with some of your stuff (namely your opinion of GW, you tend to be quite insightful otherwise).
You have NO knowledge of GW intent, yet you constently ramble about how they aren't willing to fight for their rights; and your constently proven WRONG about their actions.

Everytime Chapterhouse does something, you say "GW will have to drop the case now, they must do it, they have no other choice."
Except they have the most blantely obvious choice; keep going with the lawsuit like EVERY other company and person would do. For all the times you're said they'll have back down, they never have, and I bet they won't. Even if they have to clarify all their terms and give exact examples, they will. They won't back down at this point.

You don't pay a team of experts $1000/hour to do nothing but frighten people; you pay them to WIN against an oppoent in court AND make you your lost money back AND solidify your rights to the world.
You send people a cheap C&D to quiet them; you use an expensive lawsuit to sue the pants off people to gain back loses.



Most of us don't have distane for Chapterhouse because we thought they couldn't fight back; it's because we felt they should own up to their obvious actions and attitudes. We hope that this does go all the way, and that chapterhouse gets taught a lession; and that GW doesn't win on all counts, just the more obvious ones.

[wittdooley]

Obviously. You can't get more affordable than free. And honestly, with the cost of litigation the way it is, free is about the only way it is affordable for a small company like Chapterhouse Studios. Chapterhouse will still be out of pocket for a variety of expenses though, but I gather that with the support of the community fees like this won't be an issue.

And I hope that same community wises up, purchases their secondary market parts from companies that are NOT being litigated, which, in the case of maxmini or Micro Art, look much better anyway.