No, it doesn’t show that at all. Stop it.
It has been updated numerous times, and is now +32 days overdue. And this Friday’s update is bound to introduce further delays as the previous updates.
That’s precisely how it is supposed to be used. But I have yet to hear of anyone having to pledge the assets of two companies in order to get a loan against tax credits. Which leads me to believe that this loan was not just for tax credits.
Yeah, I can’t say I’ve ever encountered that. I’ve had to pledge some first borns and periodically some physical assets, but never everything my company owns.
Oh this one is worse. It secures present AND future assets. It’s hilarious.
Is the current version you can play now any fun? I backed the original Kickstarter at the lowest level of like 30 bucks or whatever so I think I can theoretically play something now?
You don’t believe that intellectual property includes software?
We’re gamers, so “fun” is subjective. If you have a free package, you should check it out yourself.
Last time we ran metrics, engagement was in the crapper, like less than .5% of the accounts were playing any version or module (Arena Commander, Star Marine, Persistent Universe) of the game. Even the streamers have moved on.
It’s pre-Alpha, littered with bugs, performance issues, glitches etc. And it’s a freaking performance hog. And no Delta patcher yet. So each build, you are literally downloading the WHOLE FREAKING game.
You’re trying too hard. I know that circular arguments are your favorite, but as people here who know my posting patterns from decades ago will tell you, I just ignore those.
My commentary is clear. I’m not here to educate you, nor defend their merits. You debate them all you want, it is largely irrelevant and inconsequential to me.
Just so you know, given your reputation, and out of respect to Tom, my inquiry was not intended to be antagonistic. But I’m ok with not engaging you directly if you prefer.
The fact that you need a qualifier to not be antagonistic, is evidence that you can’t be trusted.
I never said you couldn’t engage me. You made a comment. I responded. But then, you went sideways with something that wasn’t even part of the narrative. I took it as a circular argument - and thus, a waste of my time. I don’t engage in discourse to “win”, I never did - and it’s not my style.
If you want to have a proper dialog with the likes of me, here’s a tip: scroll up and read the comments that I actually respond to. You should spot a pattern. And if you do, formulate a comment and I will respond as-needed.
As I said, I did not mean to antagonize you. I apologize for it. When you are here, you are just another user like everyone else, and Tom lays out rules against bringing in baggage from outside. Those rules generally work pretty well, and it’s Tom’s house.
I’m not looking for a personal fight, I meant the inquiry as nothing more than what it was. It’s totally cool move on as though I never asked it.
OK, understood. No harm, no foul.
Why would intellectual property include software? Software can create intellectual property, but software in and of itself is not.
How often has a company bought the rights to a name without the rights to the software (or hardware) that created the products that gave rise to the IP?
Source and object code are generally always protected as intellectual property.
Timex is absolutely correct. IP covers anything protected by copyright, patents, design patents, trademarks, etc. Both software and art assets would qualify for that.
You might be mixing up the legal term vs. the way the games industry sometimes uses “new IP” to refer to a game that’s not part of an existing franchise. A legal document would always mean the first, never mean the latter.
sigh
Five Things Every Software Developer Should Know About Intellectual Property
Can Source Code be Considered Intellectual Property?
To protect your source code, treat it like intellectual property
Many people here believed this was destined to fail since the beginning. More when red flags started to show.
I am interested now in a catalog of what was really released and if is interesting to check.
I am a bit sad that … events developed the way they have developed.
I’m struggling to follow this. Admittedly I don’t generally cover IP law. But I have covered many, many, contract cases. And the overarching principal of English contract law is that when the “natural meaning” of the contract wording is unambiguous and doesn’t create a commercial absurdity, then you follow it, even if it’s not what the parties intended. It seems self-evident that the natural meaning of the deed of charge is that “Star Citizen” is not part of the collateral. What that means in terms of Squadron 42 being free and clear I can’t say, but if “Squadron 42” rather than “Star Citizen” is “the Game” I don’t see how Star Citizen is somehow captured when it’s explicitly and unambiguously excluded.
Just to be clear, you are agreeing with me here, right? The sigh at the beginning made me think you were going to argue against it.
[quote=“jsnell, post:3986, topic:74635, full:true”]
Timex is absolutely correct. IP covers anything protected by copyright, patents, design patents, trademarks, etc. Both software and art assets would qualify for that.[/quote]
IP and software (source code) are almost always mutually exclusive. There are even court cases whereby one party can own an IP, and another other aspects (e.g. source code, rights to books, but not movies etc). It’s been this way forever.
Putting “Intellectual Property” as a blanket in a term sheet, is a ticking time bomb; that’s why good contracts have it clearly defined, and where necessary, broad or exclusive of rights that are not included. e.g. what Coutts did in their charge sheet.
Owning an IP absolutely does not mean that you own source code or anything that you could lose in a defense. There are entire seminars - and lawsuits around this.
In fact, this problem exists in engineering (see drug patents), movies (see the rights split between DC and Marvel for the same characters), books (see who owns the book rights, and who owns the movie rights) etc.
It’s irrelevant. There is no blanket acceptable usage that is somehow automatically acceptable - just because someone says so. That’s why, for decades, there have been many disputes surrounding this very same thing.