You know, it is possible to correct someone without making snide insinuations about the thread and the posters in it. At least if you have something to say just come out and say it.
The existential purpose of the thread is to discuss the lawsuit, facts, opinions and all. That’s it.
Another new doc is F&P’s opposition to Stardock’s request to file a fourth amended complaint. It’s pretty straightforward.
It initially cites the judges prior order regarding the extended deadline to file the third amended complaints.
the Court noted that “[g]oing forward, the Court will summarily deny any
request to extend a deadline after its expiration.”
And then argues that even if they could amend the complaint there’s nothing they could add to give a basis for the interference claims that F&P’s attorneys have moved to dismiss.
One bit from the judge’s decision is worth a giggle. In the background section, the second line is the statement:
Defendants created the video games of “Star Control” in 1990 and “Star Control II” in 1992.
(emphasis mine)
It’s in there not as a “defendants claim” but as a statement of fact. It is only after that statement that we get into mention of claims by the parties.
I realize that in the latest amended complaint Stardock’s dropped the ridiculous “not the creators” claims (in favor of the even more ridiculous “they lied about being the sole creators and defrauded everyone”) but it’s nice to see that the judge was not buying that bullshit.
As the guy who made the thread, I find both yours and peterb’s analyses right in the spirit of the thread’s purpose (at least, I did, until you got to impugning the thread and its contributors).
Peterb has a point–that oftentimes these kinds of motions are meant to send a signal as much as serve a case. And I believe he’s a practicing lawyer, so he probably knows what he’s talking about? It is the case that Stardock have publicly been sore (and fairly so) about the messages that PR firm briefly propagated on Paul & Fred’s behalf. I don’t know how it serves their trademark infringement case to know what that PR firm discussed with them and their lawyers after the dispute started, but if you’re feeling attacked, you probably think getting a peek in your opponent’s war room will expose the gross ulterior motives that underpin their causus belli–the legal equivalent of “You see, Mr. Bond, my plan the whole time was to…” If such things turned out to not be the suspicions of a paranoid mind and were actually said in those PR/legal meetings, then the request for them in discovery would probably send exactly the message peterb’s identifying: We have the goods on you now, so give up.
One thing that can be further confirmed from these documents is that Paul and Fred really had nothing to do with the Singer Associates tweet. They didn’t even hire the PR firm.
Undoubtedly one of the things Stardock would have been fishing for here is some evidence that Paul and Fred directed a campaign to defame Stardock and/or Star Control Origins and thus harm sales. Not only do they not get access to fish that hole for evidence to support damages, the facts presented further distance the defendants from any harm potentially created.
@meeper’s right that I misread in that document requests 3, 5, and 9 were also quashed due to the attorney client privilege argument. @meeper’s reading is shallow in that he (apparently?) missed the court’s blunt statement that “these document requests are overbroad,” which I read as fairly clearly saying there was no way they would have been granted even had that not been true.
I haven’t been following this insane thread very closely, so I’m just going to assume it’s already been pointed out to Mr. Stardock that the principle value of the Star Control IP is fan nostalgia… and that by suing the creators of that IP he’s vilifying Stardock in the eyes of those selfsame fans, rendering any possible victory Pyrrhic at best. Thus, I’m curious what his response was to this observation.
Mr. Stardock paid for the rights to the name and he feels entitled to all, the absolute entirety of, the goodwill that comes with it. His actions, including calls to doxx barely related people, the quality of his game, facts, all don’t matter. He paid for the name so he is -owed- all positive things related to the brand.
The tone of this probably hints at which side of the argument I’m on… :P
You’re right, I came off harsher on the parting shot in my response to @peterb’s post than I intended and for that @peterb, I apologize.
I’m out.
No worries, man.
This.
The legal argument is that since the loss of the goodwill associated with the trademark is entirely due to Paul and Fred’s trademark infringement and the vicious social media campaign they have launched against Stardock, that Stardock deserves damages to compensate for the lost sales and the damage to its relationships with consumers and distributors.
There has been an element of “well, if we lost the fans and can’t get them back might as well go all on for damages” in Stardock’s words and action. Such as the “thank you for the exhibit” responses to people saying they won’t buy the game due to Stardock’s suit against the creators of the classic games.
So basically the actions of someone with a “double down forever” mentality. Gee, sounds familiar.
'If you are going to use our work you need to pay us since you did not purchase the rights to that work."
“That is outrageous! I am suing you for a bazillion dollars. How dare you refuse such a generous request from the Wardell!!!”
Today in hahahahaha wow
Related to this, here’s the F+P response to Stardock’s request to delay the trial for…[checks notes] six hundred and thirty seven years.
Although each is purportedly on a different issue, they both center around questions of scheduling.
That poor poor table.
Even what should be a fairly boring procedural document contains yet more accusations of nefarious schemes and intent.
Defendants’ waited until they knew Dawn Valentine (counsel for Stardock
who had been primarily responsible for meeting and conferring on this subject) was travelling out
of the country to submit their improper request for a telephonic conference (Dkt. 92) without
giving any notice to counsel for Stardock, and without attempting to submit any sort of joint
letter. Id. At this point, it is clear that Defendants’ ultimate goal is to distract Stardock and the
newly-added third parties from efficiently conducting the remaining discovery (and the beginning
discovery for the new third parties).
Those bastards!
These latest two documents really show a contrast where one is full of bombast and the other a more sober statement of facts.
It’s also interesting that Stardock has been stalling on depositions.
B. Stardock’s Bad Faith Blocking of Party Witness Depositions
The fact discovery cutoff in this case is currently December 21, 2018. Dkt 69. Counsel for
Reiche and Ford have repeatedly requested deposition dates for Stardock and its party witnesses,
beginning in the summer of this year, to no avail.
Indeed, to date, Stardock has not provided a single available deposition date for a single party witness in this case prior to the current fact discovery cutoff, despite Reiche and Ford’s repeated requests. Id. at ¶ 7. Consequently, on November 14 and 15, 2018, Reiche and Ford noticed the depositions of multiple Stardock witnesses, each of which was scheduled to take place before the December 21 discovery cutoff and each of which provided the respective deponents with reasonable notice to appear. Id. at ¶ 8. On November 20, 2018, Stardock’s counsel informed Reiche and Ford’s counsel that none of the noticed depositions dates would work for any of Stardock’s party witnesses, but provided no alternative dates. Id. at ¶ 9. Since then, counsel for Reiche and Ford have repeatedly requested, both via phone and email, that Stardock provide dates on which its party witnesses are available in December and, to the extent necessary, in January.
To date, Stardock has not provided a single available date for any of its party witnesses in December or January, despite Reiche and Ford properly noticing such depositions.
This is not a sign of a plaintiff who believes they have a strong case, but one that is hoping to win by dragging things out. In the civil case I’m involved in as a plaintiff I was eager to be deposed. The defendant on the other hand is still stalling. His attorneys know he won’t do well in a deposition (or on the stand for that matter) and so they are trying to push for mediation first and trying to settle this thing before he is deposed.
I think you have to be careful about reading too much in to the ‘tone’ of the pleadings, since they’re not going to be decided based on that tone. I do, however, agree that if you think you have a strong case you generally don’t propose pushing things off for another 6 months for no particularly identifiable reason.
To give some context to the new docs, the call mentioned is one to decide on a discovery schedule.
Stardock is apparently trying to drag out discovery as long as possible and P&F have had enough of the delaying tactics and have asked for a hearing to nail down a schedule (these are my inferences as the document asking for the conference is not available). As for now that call has been scheduled for 3p,m, today.
CLERK’S NOTICE. In light of docket entry 92, the Court sets a telephonic discovery call for 12/4/18 at 3:00 pm. The courtroom deputy clerk will e-mail call-in instructions to counsel.
So today there may be a final discovery schedule decided on and we’ll get a better idea of how long this thing will drag out.