LEGALWATCH: Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Verdict

[Deadlift]

That's cool
Just had a quick browse on the site and was wondering if your no longer doing the tech marine conversion beamer. I couldn't find it. I'm sure it was you guys that made it.

[Mike Dunford]

What you are talking about is Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) and Renewed Judgment as a Matter of Law. JMOL used to be "Directed Verdict" and Renewed JMOL used to be "Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict." Now it is just JMOL and renewed JMOL.

Thanks for the more detailed explanation. I'm a current 2L, so I am (I promise) more familiar with the Federal Rules than it might have appeared from the very sketchy explanation I provided in the earlier post. I haven't had a chance to read the JMOL motions yet, so apologies in advance if the question I'm about to ask is something that is covered more there.

Do you have any thoughts on if/how the jury verdict interacts with the judge's earlier decision on the copyright eligibility of the space marine shoulder pad itself? As I read the SJ order, the judge found that despite a copyright office ruling to the contrary, the shoulderpad itself is copyright eligible. The jury found that a number of Chapterhouse's shoulderpads infringed GW's copyrights, including Chapterhouse's versions of the generic shoulderpad. However, the jury also found that a number of the Chapterhouse shoulderpads were not infringing. That jury decision strikes me as definitely confusing and possibly inconsistent.

Thanks.

[chapterhousestudios]

That's cool
Just had a quick browse on the site and was wondering if your no longer doing the tech marine conversion beamer. I couldn't find it. I'm sure it was you guys that made it.

Put that item in the "weird and made no sense" jury rulings, Im hoping it gets appealed successfully.

[Caitsidhe]

Put that item in the "weird and made no sense" jury rulings, Im hoping it gets appealed successfully.

Me too. I want some more Hersey Era Jetpacks.

[daboarder]

Me too. I want some more Hersey Era Jetpacks.

Then quit whinging and buy them?

Oh you wanted cheap stolen knock offs....

Put that item in the "weird and made no sense" jury rulings, Im hoping it gets appealed successfully.

Out of curiosity could you explain why it made no sense?

Or is this just a case of they disagreed with you therefore "it made no sense"

If you cannot due to you pending appeal then that's fine.

[LostInTheDark]

Running a business is much like life in general, you can not possibly make everyone happy, and to try to do so will never end well.

I wont go into details pertaining to numbers but Chapterhouse is doing well even with the people who do not agree with how the business is ran. Another point to consider, the people who have been very negatively outspoken against how our products are marketed, would they ever have made purchases, is that truly a customer lost or not? It can drive a person crazy trying to figure it all out.

What I have learned is there are people on the internet, much like real life, who will never give you an inch.

To your question on would I have done things differently? Yes, some things I would have done differently. I also believe that GW has a false sense of how IP law works, and I would have always tried to market and describe our items legally, saying how something is compatible with etc. I know for fact that GW does not understand that this is completely legal and insist on artificially controlling how 3rd party companies describe our products. I have heard from the top people at GW and their marketing philosophy is flawed legally and they do want a "bully" level of control on the market. They would never have been happy with my business in the market place.

The largest consequence of the GW episode (besides a very personal one I wont extrapolate on) is that we have had to put energy into the case that otherwise could have been put into new products. It would be safe to say for 2.5 years we have been on the side-lines as far as products go, and many many competitors have jumped on board since then. I have some catching up to do, and I am sure that stalling CHS was surely a plan of GWs from the start.

There never will be anyway to determine lost or gained sales. I think this was a special case though. I can't remember a more polarising issue in recent gaming times.

It’s been good to hear from one of the involved parties directly as it provides a perspective that isn't normally available to the internet rabble like me

Thanks again for taking the time to reply and all the best.

[Caitsidhe]

Then quit whinging and buy them?

Oh you wanted cheap stolen knock offs....

I have both types, some bits from Games Workshop and those I got from Chapterhouse. In this particular case, Chapterhouse has the superior product. They aren't any cheaper either.

[chapterhousestudios]

Then quit whinging and buy them?

Oh you wanted cheap stolen knock offs....



Out of curiosity could you explain why it made no sense?

Or is this just a case of they disagreed with you therefore "it made no sense"

If you cannot due to you pending appeal then that's fine.

There was no other product out there like it either in artwork or in miniature form before we conceptualized ours. GW claimed our product infringed on their FW Astral Claws character, even though ours existed a good year before that mini ever saw the public eye. That they claimed it infringed the idea of a conversion beamer was their only motion to the jury.

When I say GWs idea, I mean the text or rules talking about a weapon that gets more powerful dependent on the range. I dont think there is any artwork of a GW conversion beamer that in any way resembles our version of the beamer.

So how the jury ruled that the Conversion Beamer and Harness kit infringed GWs text and rules about one puzzles me.

[daboarder]

There was no other product out there like it either in artwork or in miniature form before we conceptualized ours. GW claimed our product infringed on their FW Astral Claws character, even though ours existed a good year before that mini ever saw the public eye. That they claimed it infringed the idea of a conversion beamer was their only motion to the jury.

When I say GWs idea, I mean the text or rules talking about a weapon that gets more powerful dependent on the range. I dont think there is any artwork of a GW conversion beamer that in any way resembles our version of the beamer.

So how the jury ruled that the Conversion Beamer and Harness kit infringed GWs text and rules about one puzzles me.

You mean this non-existant model?

[url]http://fourstrandshobby.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ConversionBeamer1.jpg[/url]

is younger than this one,

[url]http://www.chapterhousestudios.com/pics/june2011/UPfullConversionBeamer.jpg[/url]

[Mike Dunford]

There was no other product out there like it either in artwork or in miniature form before we conceptualized ours. GW claimed our product infringed on their FW Astral Claws character, even though ours existed a good year before that mini ever saw the public eye. That they claimed it infringed the idea of a conversion beamer was their only motion to the jury.

Less than six months, actually. Based on the various new product announcement, you released yours mid-to-late June, 2011. I ordered FWs figure that had one in mid-December of that year.

In terms of the infringement, while I was (obviously) not on the jury, I suspect that the rest of the harness had a lot to do with things. Especially the lifting claw, which seems to be remarkably similar to the ones that come with a number of the GW techmarines and servitors.