2039

That’s not attributed to it being in dispute. Are we about to have another “challenge” type spat? Because that would be great - especially seeing how P&F didn’t dispute it until they were sued.

You’re wrong, on so many levels that I don’t even know where to begin.

2040

I meant in Stardock’s suit or the previous takedown, which should have been clear in context. SC:O had no legal challenges before SD sued is my understanding. In fact, SD’s claims to the trademark would be strengthened by doing nothing, as discussed during the last few days. Given that, I have a hard time seeing how it was a defense, since no attack existed.

2041

You greedy dwarves have dug too deep. You have awakened the Smartrog from his slumber and the thread now faces its doom.

2042

LOL! I love me a good pile-on :)

2043

Right. I see what you mean. Makes sense.

2044

Just to be clear, Derek, that wasn’t meant as a pile-on in a negative way. I genuinely like the modern you (you were more than a little insufferable a couple decades back :)), even if your rhetorical style can sometimes be described as, ummm… overwhelming?

I’ve also been a contrarian in this thread and agree that I don’t think Brad is evil and malicious, even though he’s said and done some ugly things during the course of this. It’s why I was so disappointed that this turned into a legal fight between the creators of one of my most beloved games and a guy who is trying to revive that franchise in 2018.

I think you put it well somewhere upthread, but Brad’s actions and statements can easily be read with malice and I understand why that is the takeaway here, but I’m also able to put myself in his shoes. When you have not just millions of dollars on the line but employees who have families to feed, you’re going to get extremely protective and defensive when that gets threatened.

One major flaw that Brad has (and I don’t think he would disagree with this) is that he can’t keep his mouth shut. I don’t mean that in a “he is a villain and has revealed his evil scheme” way, I mean that in that he’s really angry about this situation, he’s passionate about this project, and to be frank it seemed like between getting Star Control: Origins out the door and battling the lawsuit, he seemed sleep deprived and stressed out. I’ve said some stupid shit when I’ve been in far less strenuous circumstances, but I don’t say that stuff on a public forum (including Discord) when I’m in the middle of a lawsuit and PR battle.

Anyway, not trying to change anyone’s mind about Brad so “don’t @ me” as the kids say these days, just commiserating.

2045

I don’t think many if anyone in the thread does. I believe he has acted in bad faith but that hardly rises to the level of evil.

2046

Gotcha! Yeah, sorry, I think my wording was unintentionally a little hyperbolic! I’m just starting on my morning coffee. ;)

2047

No worries. The discussion does at times lend itself to hyperbole.

2048

For sure. And it totally makes sense, we’re all discussing topics that people rightfully care strongly about whether that be the P&F, the Star Control franchise itself, IP rights, etc.

2049

Also the occasional hyperbole in the thread has nothing on the hyperbole in Stardock’s complaint with all the scheme to defraud stuff. It’s almost comic.

2050

I wasn’t inferring that you were piling on. I was talking about my on-going experience here because some people seem to think that because I refuse to jump on the “Brad is evil and malicious” bandwagon, that I’m somehow wrong about everything. Sorry that I wasn’t clear there.

Indeed. Thing is, I got older - and wiser. :)

That’s precisely my position. As I’ve said before, Brad didn’t do himself any favors. That, like me, he tends to be completely unfiltered, is also primarily responsible for the impression that has come from all of this.

I mean, even when I say something as innocuous and innocent as him being “challenged” over something he believes he bought and owns - hence the lawsuit - I get to spend multiple posts arguing with people who are all like “No, he wasn’t challenged! He’s evil and wanted to steal their shit since the beginning!” It beggars belief. But hey, I was raised in age of discourse, and baptized in the fires of Usenet, so I’m immune to the sort of bs.

Indeed. And that’s why I was calling on those people try and figure out the difference between “malice” and “defense”, as they will find out that they both tend to go hand in hand depending on context. And in this regard, any sort of defensive posture or action, is deemed to be of malicious intent - because you know, you’re supposed to send your adversaries (who are intent on ruining your multi million Dollar investment) flowers and chocolates.

That’s the thing. As I mentioned earlier, he’s pretty vocal. And those of us who are independent enough to not give a shit either way, tend to be vilified because we stand up to things like this. Which is something that others in our industry simply cannot do. Heck, just this morning I was having a chat with an industry colleague about Star Citizen. And in that discussion, the same thing I hear over and over is that they know what’s going on, it’s bad for the industry and for gamers, but they dare not speak out. Which is why when people are surprised that I’ve been right about so many things about the project, and simply because I have inside info from people who know that I’m old school and can be trusted, I just shrug.

Too late. They’re coming for you, man :)

2051

It’s par for the course. Exactly how many court complaints have you actually read? You have no idea how much crap gets thrown in there. It’s also the reason why filings are usually used to disparage and defame both sides - and it’s all perfectly legal. You could make an accusation in a public forum and get sued for defamation. But you can make even more outrageous claims within the confines of a pre-existing lawsuit filing and get away with it. Then, if you feel bad about it, you get to pay attorneys to file a Motion to Strike which no only increases legal bills, but also adds more delays while the judge waits to read and rule on it. You should read the Crytek v CIG lawsuit one day, if you think the Stardock one is bad. You have no idea.

2052

Nobody said anything resembling this. I guess your posts make some sense now since you were arguing with the voices in your head.

2053

LOL! I was paraphrasing. Geez. And I can break it down:

  • No, he wasn’t challenged! : you and others claimed this
  • He’s evil: hyperbole maybe; but go to post # 1002 or search for “evil” in the thread
  • wanted to steal their shit since the beginning! : yup, scroll up
2054

I pointed out the main challenge Stardock complains about, the trademark abandonment issue, was a result of defending against the suit. A point you have now acknowledged. I asked you to clarify what was challenged. This caused you to fly off the handle.

2055

Could work. Psychological mind fuckery and all.

2056

It would have the element of surprise.

2057

The court quashes Stardock’s discovery request for communications between F+P and their PR firm:

Not game-changing in and of itself, but if you read the pleadings, and the court’s analysis of those pleadings, it’s another example where it’s clear to me (as a kibbitzing observer who is not being paid to provide legal advice to anyone) that Stardock’s lawyers were told(*) “Go out and scare these dudes, they’ll totally just give up when they see how serious we are” and F+P’s lawyers are actually playing to win. Especially interesting is the section of the court’s ruling where they call out something not protected by attorney-client privilege but quash it anyway, basically on the grounds of the request itself being overbroad.

(*) I don’t know what they were actually told. Maybe they just decided to beat their chests and file sort of lame pleadings as a matter of legal strategy all on their own.

2058

That’s certainly one possible version. Another is that Stardock wanted access the communication to inform part of their case. Instead, the discovery request was denied because the judge ruled that the PR firm was hired by, and was acting on behalf of, P&F’s counsel and not P&F. The judge reviewed relevant communications and found that the the PR firm was providing strategic guidance to counsel itself on behalf of P&F instead of providing services directly to P&F.

I mean the final order was literally this:

In sum, the Court:
QUASHES Plaintiff’s subpoena on the grounds that the requested documents or communications are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine

But you know, don’t let facts get in the way of the existential purpose of this thread.