Interesting article about the whole legal mess over at Ars Technica. Lots of interesting allegations in the legal proceedings, worth a look -
Interesting bit from the article: “However, one of Stardock’s primary talking points—one the company returns to more than once in its complaint—made us pause and do an actual double-take, because it appeared to contradict reality: Stardock alleges that Ford and Paul are not the creators of Star Control at all.”
The counter claim is pretty fascinating:
I’m no lawyer, let alone IP lawyer, but on page 43 of that document the IP ownership sure seems super cut and dry to be retained by Paul Reiche III as far as I understand it:
11.4 Ownership. Developer shall be the owner of
the copyright and all other proprietary rights in the Work
and all Derivative Works by Developer.
And Accolade even repeatedly refers to how Reiche has IP Ownership (page 59):
WHEREAS, Reiche agrees to allow Publisher to so develop such new versions and
sequels using certain characters, names, likenesses, characteristics, plot line, setting, source code,
and any proprietary rights that Reiche has in and to the Classic Star Control Software in
exchange for Publisher paying Reiche certain royalties.
Curious to see what real lawyers will make of it, but on the surface a bunch of the Stardock claims seem totally bizarre to me looking at how the original Accolade/Reiche contract has him literally signed as the developer.
Can we go to the part of the multiverse where we get Ghosts of the Precursors, Stardock’s pre-magining AND whatever pipedream @ArmandoPenblade dreams up? With an extra serving of no drama, preferably.
Since I’m totally unqualified to speak to the legal legitimacy of any of these recent actions, I will only speak to the hearts-and-minds-of-Star-Control-fanboys side of the equation by saying:
Stardock has lost all my support and goodwill based off this (from the article): “Stardock wants an injunction against Ford and Reiche producing any Star Control-ish game.” Wow, that’s shitty, guys. I know that Brad Wardell understands how video games are inspired (e.g., Titan Quest : Diablo), how ideas get picked up and recycled and revived (Stardew Valley, anyone?), and how beloved games adhere to the people who were instrumental in creating them long after the companies and franchises themselves have faded into history (CliffyB?). Don’t stop some dudes–who you supposedly admire–from making a video game.
I was excited for two Star Control-ish games to get made. What Stardock are doing sounds like an interesting take on the franchise. I wanted to play it. I STILL want to play it. I don’t know when the heck P&F might have something of their own–I bet it’s a long way off. But of course I want to play that too. Speaking as a fan, P&F’s announcement didn’t damage my interest or enthusiasm for what Stardock had in the works. What’s damaged it is their shitty, disrespectful, litigious attitude.
Well it is the company that blamed a female employee, that filed a lawsuit, for Elemental War of Magic right?
Is that due to protecting their claim to the rights? Similar to how you lose your trademark if you don’t defend it?
I honestly have no clue. That’s definitely a question, not a theory I’m putting forward. It’s just that Brad was vocally supportive of the Ford and Reiche’s game. Pretty sure he even announced it to everyone here in this thread… so something in the formula has clearly changed.
You can read the original complaint here:
You will note that it makes no claims of ownership on characters or plot line or source code.
I admit to being rather curious if Stardock had obtained a copy of the 1988 agreement referenced but not included in their filing, which was included as an exhibit in the counterclaim, before signing the asset purchase agreement with Atari. And if so, what the legal review of it said.
I am pretty sure their copy of that agreement came from us.
It’s not relevant to Stardock’s complaint because it’s purely about trademark.
Now, if Star Control: Origins had the Ur-Quan and Spathi and such, then that agreement would matter because then it came down to who owns it. My personal public position has been and continues to be that Stardock does not own any of those characters or stories. So there’s really nothing to dispute.
If they had a problem with the old games being sold online, then why wasn’t that dealt with years ago? Why now? I love the classic games but you can download UQM for free online. The sales on the classic series is a handful of units a month at most.
“The sales on the classic series is a handful of units a month at most”
That sure seems worth deciding to put them up for sale under what appears to be a very shaky legal footing for possessing the distribution rights to do so.
But it didn’t seem shaky at the time they were put up for sale, right?
That decision was made before we even acquired it from Atari. So why be mad at us?
Just to drive that point home:
After Stardock acquired the rights to Star Control – where SC 1,2,3 were already being sold digitally btw and had for some time, it had this conversation with Paul and Fred:
(this is literally exhibit E from the complaint)
So if selling the classic games online was “shaky”, 2013 would have been a good time to bring it up.
Oh, not mad (that looks to be the Star Control fan upthread), just fascinated.
Star Control: The Ur-Quan masters was published on Steam by Stardock when exactly? I’m just looking over the 1988 agreement and the Stardock/Atari purchase agreement and being a bit boggled at whatever review led to the conclusion that would include distribution rights, much less distribution without a contractual agreement with the present copyright/IP holder.
Exhibit E doesn’t really mean much here. If they had previously negotiated an agreement for the digital sales on GOG in 2011, even if one assumes that they might agree that Stardock had acquired the ability to enter into a distribution agreement with them, it doesn’t mean that they have entered into an agreement with Stardock that covers, well, say putting Star Control up on Steam with Stardock as the publisher. Or to put it bluntly: they were busy running Skylanders and assumed if you wanted to put the original games up for sale you’d contact them about doing a distribution agreement like they had previously done with GOG.
I don’t see any communication between the parties about anything like that in the Stardock filing.
I might add, if Stardock only actually published the old games in 2017, around the time Star Control Origins went up for pre-order, then Stardock might open themselves up to charges that they are marketing something they don’t actually have the rights to market in order to boost visibility and desirability of their own product.
At least, if lawsuits were flying, that’s what I’d be worried about at this juncture.
I dunno, it seems pretty crystal clear to me. I’m no lawyer but I know what the IP lawyers have said.
Well, they are certainly going to get a lot of billable hours out of their advice!
Hopefully Paul and Fred win this thing.
Is this a correct layman’s interpretation?
Paul and Fred owns the IP of Star Control. Additionally they want to be able to sell SC1-3 online.
Stardock disputes that right. It claims the right to sell SC1-3 for itself.
Basically, the ownership of the software products SC1-3 and who can sell it is in dispute.
Edit: Since the sales is so small, why not gift the products to Fred and Paul? Is there some ramifications or something?
I think that 3 is not really in dispute, no one wants it but Stardock has it. :)
