Quote Originally Posted by Nabterayl View Post
Can't imagine much of interest occurred at the status conference. It's just an administrative meeting to decide on a trial schedule.

A defense of laches is not quite that, wittdooley. A defense of laches essentially says, "Yes, I violated your copyright, but you knew about it, and didn't do anything, and it would be completely unfair to me if I was punished for violating your copyright now because it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that because you were inactive for X amount of time, you weren't going to sue me ever." In order for a laches defense to work, the defendant needs to prove (i) the plaintiff knew of the defendant's copyright infringement, (ii) the plaintiff's delay in taking action was inexcusable, (iii) the defendant would be unduly prejudiced if the plaintiff were allowed to assert its rights now. Exactly how long is "inexcusable" will vary with the circumstances, but laches certainly doesn't require a plaintiff to sue the instant they know about an infringement as a general rule.

Abandonment of copyright is a pretty gray area, and I'd be surprised if that claim went anywhere. Pretty much the only reliable way I know of to demonstrate that somebody has abandoned their copyright is for them to execute a writing that says "I hereby abandon my copyright and place it in the public domain."
Thanks for the responses. I do want GW to win this, but only because of the seeming arrogance of their naming standards for their products. I like their new Scorpion Championess; I like it even more because they aren't trying to directly rip off GW names.

I think it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out but, IMO, the last thing we need are a bunch of subpar studios making GW knockoffs and being overly ambiguous about whether or not they're directly associated with GW.