Games Workshop v Chapterhouse Studios - Post Trial Events

[lattd]

Weeble ive been following this case from the start that wasn't hyperbolic opinion that was strong legal opinion based on the documents and if you have read my other comments you would know I have the knowledge to back up my opinion.

Confusion after the case is a non issue though its confusion before the case which leads to legal action. If people have been confused by the use before the trial then GW can and did claim, successfully I might add, that there is infringement. I would also note that my opinion on what GW would appeal was spot on, I stated they would appeal on misdirection of law to the jury which is the case here, and I strongly agree with it, I can see CHS side but I really do feel it is clutching at straws.

[weeble1000]

Weeble ive been following this case from the start that wasn't hyperbolic opinion that was strong legal opinion based on the documents and if you have read my other comments you would know I have the knowledge to back up my opinion.

Confusion after the case is a non issue though its confusion before the case which leads to legal action. If people have been confused by the use before the trial then GW can and did claim, successfully I might add, that there is infringement. I would also note that my opinion on what GW would appeal was spot on, I stated they would appeal on misdirection of law to the jury which is the case here, and I strongly agree with it, I can see CHS side but I really do feel it is clutching at straws.

I am not aware of any case law from any Berne convention country that establishes any sort of standard for an objective analysis of whether an element is standard in a subject or genre. I've just never seen that. I think the CHS case is broaching new ground when it comes to expert testimony in a copyright case. So, really, the question is an academic one and has a great deal to do with whether there can actually be expert testimony in a copyright case. Certainly, there's case law about experts in copyright cases involving technical diagrams. So, one can at least say that at some point a line is crossed an a lay person must be educated by an expert in order to make a determination of what is or is not protected by copyright.

Where is that line? Does the average person on the street know about the vast world of science fiction? How can the average person on the street look at an expression of a "future soldier" and identify what elements are standard, common, or indispensable? Certainly you yourself are well educated in the subject, but I daresay even you are probably woefully ignorant of the vast array of prior existing works in even the relatively tiny science fiction fantasy table top wargaming industry. What if you were asked to sit on a case about...say...romance novels? What about...postmodern reinterpretations of African tribal artwork? Are jurors always assumed to be perfectly familiar with popular culture? What if it isn't popular culture?

It is assumed that technical drawings are outside the scope of an average person's everyday experience. How different is fantasy table-top wargaming, or any other narrow artistic niche?

[lattd]

I agree an expert in the field will be difficult as this is a tiny area. However someone who admits to knowing nothing about the area has no idea what is common and his only research into the area was the charts given to him is woefully under qualified. Whilst the other expert broke down the the items too far caused confusion and then the judge failed to correct the problem. It should be the overall design not the individual elements which happened.

At first i thought GW had really poorly run this case, looking through the documents it seems the judge and CHS's experts have caused the jurors series confusion.

An appropriate expert would be a toy expert or another model designer?

[Mr Mystery]

In regards to my initial post, it's just from the answers I gathered on the previous thread. I'm happy to admit I don't my arse from my elbow in this realm!

I've read through part of GW's argument, and my eyes glazed, so gave up.

But beware folks, I will be (attempting) to follow the thread, and may chime in from time to time asking for clarification!

[GrauGeist]

Jesus can't we just shut up with this stuff.

Its over. The verdict is in. It may have been wrong in my opinion, but thats besides the point.

Just leave it in the dust...

Um, that's not how the law works. The law is a very involved and expensive process, which is why you don't want to sue (or be sued) if you can settle. It's why GW was generally successful asserting IP until CHS found compentent pro bono representation (tho expenses were still high).

Until all appeals are exhausted, this isn't over. Amounts can be reduced, and errors can be corrected. Expect more time, as it's a civil case that can't just go away.

[GrauGeist]

I am not aware of any case law from any Berne convention country that establishes any sort of standard for an objective analysis of whether an element is standard in a subject or genre. I've just never seen that. I think the CHS case is broaching new ground when it comes to expert testimony in a copyright case. So, really, the question is an academic one and has a great deal to do with whether there can actually be expert testimony in a copyright case. Certainly, there's case law about experts in copyright cases involving technical diagrams. So, one can at least say that at some point a line is crossed an a lay person must be educated by an expert in order to make a determination of what is or is not protected by copyright.

Where is that line?

Go look at the Playmates Exo-Force case, which is largely similar in concept. Similar details and analysis over Sci-Fi IP.

[Denzark]

Ever since Weeby first started spouting on this, and I worked out how to use the ignore list, debates on this subject have been far less tedious.

[Mr Mystery]

Time for a quick recap for people like me, the hard of understanding.....

GW are appealing on account the Expert Witnesses brought by CH to the trial weren't in fact experts, and this would only have misled/confused the jury (remember legal peeps, I'm a pleb. Don't worry about the exact words I've used!)

CH from what I grasp, are stating this doesn't matter, as no expert witness is required?

[lattd]

CHS are also stating that GW didn't even make a case and didn't prove anything. GW have also stated that the judge advised the jury wrongly in this case which was further exasperated by the non-expert expert witnesses.

So GW argument is the judge applied the law wrong, the experts caused confusion, which the judge did not help clarify and the experts where not experts. Finally GW have asked for a retrial on some of the issues because the jury found the basic shoulder pad is copyright able as such is use in any of the other products means they automatically infringe, however the jury the said that some of the pads where different enough but GW are stating that the jury was mislead in how much difference is needed whcich was compounded by the poor experts.

CHS are stating GW didn't make out there case. Which is basically the weakest defence you can make out. There experts really didn't help there case by stating I don't know what's common in this field, this screams that as it cannot be confirmed as common then it infers u I queens which confirms copyright and this means it's infringing to use it.

[Herzlos]

CHS are stating GW didn't make out there case. Which is basically the weakest defence you can make out. There experts really didn't help there case by stating I don't know what's common in this field, this screams that as it cannot be confirmed as common then it infers u I queens which confirms copyright and this means it's infringing to use it.

Is it that weak? Take the likelihood to cause confusion stuff, CHS are asserting that in order to have been found likely to cause confusion, GWS must have provided some evidence that it was likely, whereas they seem to have managed to refuse their own case by stating that it wasn't likely. Surely that's a reasonable claim?