Occam’s Razor says what’s really going on here is these attorneys realize that Brad’s deposition is going to be a complete shitshow and are trying to derail it before it happens.
I’m on my phone where it’s difficult to quote the document, but I enjoyed the part about the scorched-earth style deposition.
A brief search for “Star control” on twitter finds Brad still to this day saying that P&F “are trying to also claim that they own the idea of hyperspace”.
Apparently, the term refers to trying to drive up the other side’s litigation expenses. It’s kind of rich coming from Stardock, given the games they’ve been playing by filing all of those trademark applications.
Yes, exactly. Along the same lines is the complaining about the counter-complaint being amended multiple times when much of it was in response to Stardock’s amending their complaint to heap on everything including the kitchen sink.
How dare they use our tactics against us!
Idle question: how bad would the trial and judgment likely have to go to make Stardock go out of business? I say trial because presumably Stardock wouldn’t agree to a settlement that ruined them. Any insight or analogous examples?
There’s really no way to know. Stardock is privately owned, so its finances are undisclosed.
Brad claims that he was forced to immediately lay off engineers because of P&F’s DMCA. If SD was so tight on cash that an interruption to the SC:O revenue stream forced layoffs, then they’re already on the edge.
However, I suspect that any such layoffs were either exaggerated (i.e. not really necessary) or entirely fictional, for the purpose of eliciting sympathy. A responsible business owner who cared about their employees would have prepared for this entirely foreseeable event in the months leading up to it, so that they could weather a short interruption, and shift the employees to other productive work if it went longer.
It’s not atypical for studios to lay off people after a game ships so that is a further reason it is really impossible to know the situation as an outsider on what the cause of layoffs would actually be if they occurred (I don’t know if they did or did not).
If this case goes to trial I will eat a virtual hat.
I think that there’s a decent chance that Stardock’s next filing will trying to somehow get an injunction against a trial because it’s unfair for P&F to abuse the legal process like that.
I looked through the recent filing but I am ignorant about what it all means so I have a probably dumb question. Is it actually uncommon for a deposition to involve questions that would find potential deficiencies in discovery? It seems to me that parties would basically always be trying to ascertain if the other party is hiding/omitting things. Or am I missing something obvious here?
If I’m not mistaken one of the worst case scenarios is 3x revenues from SC:O (plus the prior SC1&2 sales). Given a steamspy based at most 100k sales as an estimate, even at full retail that shouldn’t be instant bankruptcy money unless the company is in trouble already.
Though even if such a hit could be easily weathered, it’s a foolish risk to take at trial. Especially given how unlikely a victory could yield a payoff in league with the risk.
I can’t imagine how Stardock plans to prove damages of any significance. How will they prove P&F’s blog post cost them the hundreds of thousands, or even thousands, of sales that would make a judgement anywhere worth the cost of achieving it?
-
People are entitled to have differing opinions on what constitutes a fair and moral use of DMCA from you or Stardock. As such, you’re being disingenuous trying to characterise it as an either/or.
-
Yes the DMCA went exactly as designed. I don’t know why you felt the need to emphasise something that no-one (not even Stardock) disputed the DMCA process. The game also wasn’t available on Steam for a certain period, so you’re incorrect on that.
-
Neither you nor I can state that “P&F had reasonable belief of copyright infringement”. Unless you’re a copyright lawyer working for P&F? If so, you probably shouldn’t be commenting in public.
-
You’re misunderstanding the DMCA process if you think Valve/GOG have the duty (or legal right) to form a ‘reasonable belief’ on the the legitimacy of a DMCA, the act is designed to not give them such.
-
You’re another person arguing against one of the literal definitions of the word abuse.
I don’t have any grá for Brad, his emails and twitter posts have shown him to be dishonest, disingenuous and at times duplicitous (e.g. his dealings with the fansite).
I’m still entitled to form the opinion that using the DMCA against a game for incorporating ideas (like hyperspace) and design elements (like an isometric viewpoint) is DMCA abuse and something that could set a very dangerous and chilling precedent, but thanks for trying to speak for me.
Yeah, it was really wack for Paul and Fred to have Rebel Galaxy and Mass Effect taken down, smh.
You can have your opinion but not your own facts. What you stated there is not factual. P&F are not claiming they own hyperspace. The chart they put out is but one example, others are contained in their counter complaint.
Yes we can. They have listed elements they believe to be infringing in the suit and in that blog post. This isn’t a secret or a mystery. Then there’s the CEO literally announcing the intent to use their IP. Your stance here is nonsensical.
Nobody is arguing against the definition of the word. You have failed to make an actual fact based case as to why the word applies.
P&F’s response to the latest delaying tactic is up on courtlistener. Seems Stardock has been playing discovery shenanigans. They suddenly found tens of thousands of documents they forgot to turn over right before Brad’s scheduled deposition which then had to be delayed due to that.
It’s apparently not the first time this has happened, either.
Apparently there had been three depositions scheduled in Michigan two weeks ago, and P&F’s lawyer had flown in to do them. But then after one deposition had concluded, and right before Brad was going to be deposed, SD came out with new documents, and asked for them to be rescheduled. So P&F’s lawyer flew back to CA, and the depositions were delayed to next week.
Now, Brad is scheduled to be deposed on Monday, and P&F’s lawyer was about to fly out, and SD is again requesting a delay. P&F’s lawyer is objecting to having to make these extra trips, and arguing that SD should pay for them, and should have to fly to San Francisco if they are delayed again.
There’s also this interesting tidbit:
Reiche and Ford suspect that the real reasons for Stardock seeking more delays are to give it time to engage in even more procedural antics intended to further delay and increase the cost of bringing this case to resolution, e.g. seeking to reopen the Atari bankruptcy and/or to compel arbitration and/or add more claims for breach of the long-expired license agreement between Reiche and Accolade, the original publisher of the Star Control games. (emphasis added)
Re-opening a bankruptcy six years post-facto? Is that something that happens?
Close, but they’d hardly have a case there. They listed a partial collection of elements that put together they believe are infringing.