Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Document Dump

[DoctorEvil]

Wow....I just browsed through the two motions for summary judgement and my initial impression is that CH has a really weak arguement.

[URL="http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30508"]http://www.chillingeffects.org/copyright/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30508[/URL]

This is an interesting article that goes through copyright and trademark. Interesting read especially in light of the two motions

[Psychosplodge]

I also like the fact that CHS refer to "28mm" as the standard scale, when in fact GW actually created the "28mm" scale by setting that precedent with its miniatures.

Before GW settled on 28mm all miniature manufacturers actually used 25mm as the standard scale. It is only since GW changed to "Heroic" scale which is essentially 28mm did other miniature manufacturers follow suit.

I know it's not possible to copyright a scale, but let's be honest, other figure companies made the change to allow players to use their figures in GW games.

If you look at minis from Ral Partha in the eighties / early nineties they are tiny!

Weren't they generally posted as a ratio?

[Mr Mystery]

For those of us who cannot be arsed, can someone post up the salient points of both sides arguments?

[Bigred]

Rabscutle on the frontpage summarized both motions as follows:

GW's case reads like "C'mon judge, look at their stuff. It is too much like ours. They totally infringed on stuff we sell."

CHS's case reads like "GW doesn't own any of the things it is suing us over because they can't back anything up with actual proof."

[Mr Mystery]

Rabscutle on the frontpage summarized both motions as follows:

Even though there are numerous instances of CH bragging online he's infringing GW Copyright etc?

[Lerra]

It doesn't matter if the owner of CH travels to children's orphanages and pees in their cheerios. The lawsuit is between businesses, not individuals. Either the product is infringing or it's not, and his personal statements don't change that.

[lattd]

It doesn't matter if the owner of CH travels to children's orphanages and pees in their cheerios. The lawsuit is between businesses, not individuals. Either the product is infringing or it's not, and his personal statements don't change that.

Actually it does, if he was the sole owner of the company his conduct in advertising the business is the conduct of the business and if they actively admitted to crossing the line a copy of times then they have admitted guilt.

[Bigred]

Latest responses by both sides have been posted in OP.

Now they are getting down to the nitty gritty.

[DrLove42]

Latest responses by both sides have been posted in OP.

Now they are getting down to the nitty gritty.

Only skimmed, but GW are making serious. points abiut CHS and CHS' statements just seem to be splitting haors about wording of the specifics.

For instance CHS complain that "NY book list" entrants dont count because theyre not defined

[gcsmith]

CHS are an arrogant child about to lose their toys.

The government needs to snatch them and say no.