Or Activation buys Stardock and assigns P&F and Brad to work together on a new Star Control game. Bobby Kotick won’t let them out until they learn to get along.
Later the script rights to the story are sold and an unlikely buddy film is made about the adventure.
Yeah, I got my dates wrong. I thought there had been one scheduled for around this time. It looks like the next settlement conference isn’t until May.
I’m not sure if there’s a newer schedule than this on from October:
- Deadline to Amend Pleadings 10/15/18
- Close of Fact Discovery 12/21/18
- Initial Expert Disclosure & Reports 01/11/19
- Rebuttal Expert Designation 02/08/19
- Close of Expert Discovery 02/22/19
- Law and Motion Cutoff 05/22/19
- Pretrial Preparation Filings 06/19/19
- Motions in Limine & Objections to Evidence 07/03/19
- Oppositions/Responses 07/10/19
- Replies 07/17/19
- Pretrial Conference 08/14/19
- Trial 08/26/19
- Mandatory Settlement Conference 05/27/19 - 07/12/19
There had been a tentative proposal (referenced in ¶8) at one point to meet for settlement on Jan 16, but it looks like it didn’t happen.
I was momentarily optimistic the re-listing was a sign of progress. I guess it’s back to cynicism until at least May.
I can’t believe these posts are still here. These statements are literally nonsense and completely prejudice Stardock’s case as they demonstrate clear intent to infringe on copyright.
This is an attempt to extrapolating trademark rights that don’t exist. If Stardock argued that it had the names because P&F didn’t register rights to them or otherwise making some claim that you own trademarks to those names, that’s one thing (it would also fail, but the rights to unregistered trademarks at common law/vs registered marks are limited)-- but stating that you own the names in a copyrighted work just because you own the trademark to the game is just wrong. That would be like Pepsi-cola claiming it owned the name sugar and fructose sugar.
That said, this is a relatively novel legal situation - there aren’t a lot of examples of someone owning the content of the work but not the name it was published under so it’s legally interesting. Generally if an artist retains the ownership of the work, he or she also retains ownership of the name the work is released under. But being successful on the legal merits would require Stardock to argue that the content is a necessarily component of the value of the trademark, which would render the copyright valueless, which is clearly incorrect.
Nobody would ever buy ‘Lord of the Rings’ without buying the copyrighted content, or Star Wars without the copyrighted content, because the trademark would be perceived as essentially valueless. Stardock is arguing that shouldn’t be the case but to be successful it would have to essentially argue that the copyright has no value since you can use all the content anyway, which is beyond a creative legal argument.
The idea that Stardock owns the Arilou and other alien names because it bought the trademark Star Control is so obviously untrue that I don’t believe anyone sincerely believes it, and making such a contrived, disingenuous argument is likely going to work out very poorly.
By my (non-lawyer) understanding of trademark transfer rules, trying to transfer a trademark like that without the copyright would be deemed an “assignment in gross” and result in the trademark being cancelled, because it didn’t transfer the assets essential to the consumer goodwill associated with the Mark.
The word still up there is really unnecessary.
“I can’t believe these posts are here.”
Sure, that they still are is amazing too, but that is dwarfed by their actual creation.
This is so true. In fact, reading through your comments on this thread, I am in complete agreement with everything (I’ve seen) that you’ve said here.
You are completely right about the, um, novel use of trademark that is being attempted. People freaking about any DMCA abuse precedents should be completely aghast at the legal theories that Stardock is putting forth. The idea that anything ever associated with a trademark is owned by the mark holder, regardless of copyrights or any other IP rights, is bonkers.
Impossible, in fact, in that jurisdiction.
Exactly how i feel. So disappointing how this played out.
None of that is legally relevant. That’s not why the injunction was initiated or a reason that would be considered in deciding to grant/reject it. The granting of the injunction is just to prevent potential harm that may not otherwise be addressable through financial compensation - it’s a relatively high standard to meet, but it is not a comment on the merits of the case. In fact, if Stardock wins, the use of an injunction by P&F will likely result in additional damages being awarded to Stardock to reflect how it was prejudiced by the injunction.
Are people weeping yet? I was promised weeping. About something no one cares about, apparently.
FWIW, if I remember correctly, Stardock is basing this on a clause in one of the Accolade agreements that says Accolade owns (not an exact quote) “The Star Control mark and all other associated trademarks.” Accolade and Atari never treated the alien names (or Frungy or Crimson Corporation) as trademarks, so it doesn’t seem too convincing, but I’m no expert.
This was actually a terrible inclusion by P&F as it weakens their case significantly, since Stardock clearly had the rights to do this.
Right, Stardock can use Riku’s music. The reason this item is in P&F’s list (although I agree, it’s probably just distracting from their point) is that they’re showing how the expression of the idea of hyperspace in SCO is substantially similar to SC2, music included. They are NOT claiming they own the individual items on that list, as I understand it.
Like the other points in the list it’s not that they don’t have the rights to the music used, but that they choose to use derivative music in order to mimic SC2.
Though yes, it was a terrible inclusion since there were enough line items and it was bound to confuse the issue as it clearly has since the music belongs to Riku.
You can sue for malpractice, and all lawyers are required to have E&O insurance for that reason, but getting “bad advice” is not sufficient to be malpractice, or more than half the civil litigators and criminal lawyers would be guilty. You really have to be blatantly negligent to incur liability, not just wrong or a bad lawyer.
Except the strategic mode in Star Control 3 didn’t actually exist as intended or described in the manual - it was all smoke/mirrors. I do agree that SC3 does not deserve the vitriol directed at it - the “3d combat” mode didn’t work great, but it was optional, and the new aliens and their ships were reasonable well designed and entertaining - the SC2 aliens that were incorporated reiterated too much of their SC2 beats, and the developers clearly ran out of time and weren’t able to incorporate the intended strategic level so they just fudged it with a couple scripted events, but the game wasn’t a catastrophe or disrespectful to SC2 or a cynical cash-in. It’s certainly more fun than SC1.