I guess we’ll see if any lawyers well versed in the Federal Rules of Evidence care to weigh in.
It would be fascinating to see transcripts of the legal meetings on the Stardock side of things because the legal strategy seems geared towards a couple of conditions:
the other party is intimidated by threats of apocalyptic litigation
the other party is intimidated by the costs of litigation
the other party doesn’t have counter-claim ammunition
And it seems as if none of these conditions is true.
Since this is about an ongoing legal dispute, I and the litigants’ lawyers would be much obliged if litigants tried to steer clear of participating in the discussion. While I appreciate efforts to be candid and open, candor and transparency aren’t necessarily the best approach while a situation resolves itself in a legal forum instead of a videogaming site forum. :)
So, @Brad_Wardell, I would suggest clicking the button under the thread marked “Normal” and changing it to “Muted”.
And to people using this thread to stir up shit, please don’t.
Not me. Really surprised anyone else out there is as obsessed as I am with Martian Dreams to use one of their ugly plant-people for an icon.
Brad, you said:
That doesn’t square with the content of the “corrective statement” in which Paul & Fred are supposed to say, essentially, “We’re excited to bring all the aliens, old and new, together into Star Control: Origins so that all the fans can be united in harmony.” If you got your way (as described by the settlement) would you not have Pkunk and Spathi, et al., in Origins?
(I posted this before seeing @tomchick’s message. I think he’s right that Brad should probably be keeping his mouth shut. Maybe it’s wrong of me, then, to keep asking him questions, but he keeps answering. I’ll stop. And, Tom, if it seems like this thread is just going to become a swamp of virulence, then I don’t object to shutting it down. I mainly started it because it didn’t seem any good to have the legal discussion mucking up the conversation about Stardock’s game.)
I think we’ll be okay, and I’d hate to lock a thread. But this is definitely the kind of situation where I’d be willing to lock it if it continues to get out of hand.
That said, I appreciate your motivation for splitting this discussion from the discussion about the game.
Straight up. Atari sold them a cat in a bag, but as it turns out there was no cat in the bag.
Stardock’s nuclear assault approach is a legit way of regaining control of the situation. It leaves a foul taste in most folk’s mouths, but I’d say that 90% of US IP Law tastes like warm lumps of dog shit anyway.
Seriously, is your lawyer aware that you are posting this meaningless word salad on the Internet? You should send her or him a link so that she or he can give you appropriate advice. If you were my client, I would advise you “stop posting.”
I believe there’s a legal question around whether Paul and Fred were actually entitled to have released that source code in the first place. But regardless, Stardock are fully behind the UQM project, and are in fact planning to release the full code for SC3 as well.
(I do not work for Stardock and may be talking out of my ass. This is just going from what Stardock has said on their forums).
I haven’t seen anyone question the legality of Ur-Quan Masters in the course of the rest of this debate. What I don’t know is what Stardock would do if they win the trademark to that phrase (which Brad recently claimed they have a “common law trademark” on… I don’t know if that’s a thing or not, or how it’s enforceable).
They have no interest in shutting down the UQM project, as I said they intend to flush new life into it with the SC3 source. Therer are no plans to remake UQM and letting people play with it etc can only benefit SCO, so trying to shut ot down would be monumentally stupid, and I don;t think they are at all stupid.
They are seeking the trademarks to protect themselves, not to shut down UQM Project.
Again, I don’t work for SD, I’m only going on what they have said numerous times in forums and other places online.
Yeah, given all the other stuff going on here, I don’t think they’d let that open source project exist if they win. It’s all stuff that confuses “their” brand.
“I don’t plan to do X, but I need to make sure I have the right and authority to do X without repercussion. For totally defensive purposes of course.” Is not the most convincing of arguements. From anyone.
One can only hope that cooler heads prevail and something along the lines of P&F’s settlement offer with more exact details of what specific things fall to each party is being discussed.
The part about about prior games being made public domain I’d hope Stardock would agree to. It would be a great show of good will to the community and doesn’t really give anything up to P&F directly so does not need to be considered a concession to them personally. It’d be like agreeing to let the bystanders vacate the area so the two sides can continue to shoot it out without causing collateral damage.
If your trademark applications go through, do you plan on shutting
down the open-source UQM, too?
No. Stardock’s games have many fan communities and we support what they do. After this is over, we plan to release Star Control 3 source code to the fan community as well as work with them on what we are calling the Open Universe project.
Stardock even hosts its competitors fan communities in the software arena: https://www.wincustomize.com/
If you’re going to start proposing mustache twirling evil motives to everything Stardock does, then this entire discussion is pointless. You’re clearly not interested in debate or discussion, you’re just here to push your personal Stardock=evil and P&F=saints philosophy.
