It doesn’t need to be proven either way. Stardock would need to prove the payments happened, not the other way around. (And given the amount of circumstantial evidence about the contract expiring, e.g. the release of UQM and the 2011 correspondence with Atari, it seems incredibly unlikely that Stardock could prove anything here.)
It’d make no impact to the trademark claims, which are pretty much the entirety of Stardock’s case.
However… After the latest statements about how the “fans demand the old races”, it’s starting to be pretty clear that Stardock’s end-game here is purely about getting access to the classic lore. It’s got very little to do with the reasons Brad has given publicly like protecting the launch window.
There’s basically two ways they could get access to the classic lore:
They’ve been claiming for a while that they had a persistent license to the old lore at an X% royalty fee based on one of the old contracts. I personally don’t see how that reading of the contracts could possibly work. This is what the expiry of the old contracts would affect.
Get Reiche/Ford to make a deal. If that’s not happening organically, use this lawsuit as leverage. The old contracts will have very little effect here, since it’s just about the trademark.
Pretty disappointing. But I am pretty curious about how they’re going to try to play things if the case isn’t settled before the game releases.
The lack of royalty payments precedes Stardock’s involvement by like 16 years or something. It’s outlined in the counterclaim. While I think a healthy amount of skepticism can be applied to any public statements from either parties, they are very unlikely to flat out lie about facts like this in their legal filings (this is on page 8):
Accolade never paid Reiche any advances or royalties under Addendum No. 3 after
the initial advance of $10,000 in 1998 because it never released another Star Control game. On
information and belief, Accolade also paid no royalties to Reiche and Ford for sales of the Classic
Star Control Games after 2000 at the latest, indicating that it had stopped selling them. Thus, the
1988 License Agreement and Addenda Nos. 1-3 expired and terminated no later than April 1,
2001, either by virtue of expiration of the term set forth therein and/or Accolade’s failure to pay
royalties. Thus, all rights to Star Control, Star Control II, and Reiche’s Preexisting Characters
used in Star Control 3 reverted to Reiche on or about April 1, 2001.
There’s more specifics in both the Stardock and P&F filings. If you’re interested enough in this to argue for days on the internet about it (not a slight, I am included in this) it really is worth reading the few filings. There’s a lot of factual stuff that is interesting even if the legal ramifications are opaque to me.
Another interesting thing in the filings is that P&F apparently did try and get the Star Control trademark a few times over the years and couldn’t negotiate terms.
Though separate from that is whether Stardock paid royalties on their steam sales, and unlike things like the contract terms we can read in black and white there’s no definitive info on that. I have no problem saying the notion that they did not is indeed a matter of speculation on my part as I don’t think we have anything definitive either way.
I think you’re misreading that. Let’s look at it closer:
At best, they could claim Stardock’s share of the ~$10,000 (which Paul and Fred receive a royalty from) the games have netted on Steam since release.
What this is saying is:
Sales of the classic games on Steam have produced $10k in revenue.
Royalties are being paid on that $10k.
If it turns out that Stardock had no right to sell these games, Reiche/Ford could claim all of the $10k.
No further damages beyond that $10k are possible.
That works the other way around too. If Reiche/Ford were being stiffed on the royalties Stardock claims they were paying, you think they wouldn’t have said something?
That’s not at all what this sub-thread of the discussion is about. This is purely about the claims made in this thread that in 2017 Stardock was selling copies of the classic games without paying royalties.
It should be pretty clear that I’ve read through all of that…
That is a possible interpretation but it’s really not definite what is meant there. They way I understand it works with GOG is that GOG pays each party the slice. So the statement that they received royalties as I said could imply that Steam was paying P&F a slice.
If Stardock launched on or near that day (they have already taken pre-orders) and the game does use “classic” aliens, etc…are they liable for infringement penalties if they do not reach a settlement or win on the validity of the Accolade contract?
They also are selling access to a “Battle Test” currently when you buy. I do not know this product first hand, are classic elements used in this software?
They did object to the steam sales. That’s one of the major steps on the path that led us here. Last year when Stardock put the games up on Steam P&F contacted them about it to say they didn’t have their permission to do so. That’s how we got the DMCA request.
I have not seen any factual claim from either side on if royalties have been paid on the steam sales vs gog specifically, but the counterclaim does claim that some royalty payments were not being paid properly:
In light of Stardock’s infringement and apparent abandonment of the revenue split
that had been agreed-upon with Atari in 2011, Reiche and Ford terminated their agreement with
GOG in or around November 2017 and, at GOG’s request, sent it a notice of infringement and
request to remove the Classic Star Control Games, which it complied with on or about
December 6, 2017. But again, Stardock sent GOG a counter-notice and, as a result, GOG has
resumed selling the Classic Star Control Games.
Yes. They said Stardock no longer had the rights to sell those games, since the contracts had expired. AFAIK they did not say that Stardock was selling the games and additionally not even paying the royalties as per the expired contracts. The latter seems like a much stronger PR argument.
I honestly don’t understand your double standard here. You insist that Stardock not doing sufficient preventive PR for on an issue that didn’t exist until you invented it is proof of it happening. But Reiche/Ford not using what would be awesome PR fodder? Well, totally normal. Can’t possibly read anything into that.
Good find. I had ctrl-f’d things for “royalties” since I thought I remembered something regarding it but obviously I should have tried a few more terms.
You seem to be going out of your way to find fault with me and not only my arguments. I am happy to discuss this, and as you can see I concede easily when information is presented that contradicts my beliefs. There’s really no need for these accusatory asides.
As it turns out, P&F did specifically mention the lack of royalties in their counterclaim. So your attempt to attack me and claim double standards was really ill timed.
If I had to guess, and 100% it is just a guess, since SC1&2 were only on Steam for a brief period of time before P&F objected, even if Stardock hadn’t paid royalties yet it probably would have been easy to make them current in a however-long-it-normal-takes-to-pay-royalties window. P&F’s main argument is that Stardock doesn’t have a license to sell them at all, so the royalty payments are secondary (although interesting). I do agree that if Stardock had paid no royalties that it would seem to make sense as a PR weapon, but at the same time it’s probably a fairly small number that would be easy for Stardock to write a check for and then make a big deal about how insignificant it was.
How do we find the court case status for this? Does anyone have the schedule? I’m interested in how long this is going to take to proceed, is it going to be in the courts for 4 more years? Is the next actual law thing not going to happen for another 8 months? Just curious.
I don’t have time to go searching for it now, but I know I saw a link that said the next settlement conference wasn’t until April 2019. Not sure if the trial date has been set or has been mentioned anywhere.
The Gog sales (after the three way Atari deal) were not done on a royalty basis. They were a revenue split, based on neither party alone having the rights to sell the game.
There is nothing in that paragraph that suggests that the 2017 sales on Steam (and later on Gog) were “unlicensed and sold without royalties”. Again, the argument from Reiche/Ford is that the contracts that Stardock was using as a basis had been actually terminated. It was not that Stardock had invented some totally new right outside of those old contracts, that allowed them to sell the games with no license and not pay Reiche/Ford any royalties. It’s this latter claim that was being discussed.
Fair enough. I’m clearly getting too frustrated by this discussion, so I’ll bow out for now. We can pick it up again if you choose to continue making this claim as a fact.
As per above, they do not mention lack of royalties at all.
I think it’s clear we’re talking past each other and I think it’s probably my fault because I seem to be using inaccurate terminology and stuff. I will admit my ignorance and roll back my specific statements.
Is there some technical meaning of “royalties” that does not include a revenue splitting agreement? You seem to be implying they are two different things. If I have been using the wrong term I’m happy to admit it. In my understanding a revenue splitting agreement is just another way to say royalties. A percent of sales that a party is paid.
If they are two different things, and a revenue splitting agreement does not count as royalties, then that would further indicate that the claim that P&F received uninterrupted royalties on the sales is false.
