When you leave the Sol system in the main campaign, you run into the Arilou, but they don’t tell you their name. They explain a few things about the Precursors and they say they’ll be back later.
Thanks for the elaborate reply. I think you might like this one:
First one that comes to mind anyway.
/derail
Yes, that was an excellent synopsis that memorializes my own understanding. And it also goes toward what I stated that what Brad bought was tainted by claims he obviously wasn’t aware of at the time. And as the purchase indicates, the due diligence (as with things like this) is up to the buyer. Had Brad reached out to P&F ahead of his finalizing of the purchase, all of this could have been avoided.
This isn’t entirely accurate:
However, Brad did not bother to contact Paul for such a license prior to bidding on the trademark. He seems to have taken it for granted that Paul would give him one.
My understanding is that Brad contacted them after the purchase. Which is when he came to realize that what he bought probably wouldn’t allow him to make the game he wanted.
IP (trademark, copyright etc) law is an absolute mess. Especially when different people own or have rights to different aspects of the same works. e.g. When P&F ask GoG to pull their games from the store, Atari (from whom Brad bought what he did) had to give GoG explicit rights to use the Star Control trademark (later owned by Brad). As a result, GoG had to do a separate deal with GoG for the games (SF 1-3) themselves. At that point, it was clear that Atari (as per their own attorneys) knew they didn’t own the rights to those “games” (<— this is very important) themselves.
Then Stardock started selling SF 1-3, “games” for which they apparently (as per what they purchased from Atari) had no rights (still owned by P&F). This despite the fact that NOTHING in the purchase agreement appeared to give Stardock the rights to do so. Here is where that pesky IP law comes into play. Having rights to a trademark and/or copyright for a game, absolutely, positively, does NOT confer the right to the actual “body of work” (in this case the games) if those rights aren’t explicit.
To me, that’s the only indisputable claim that P&F have. But only IF they can prove that they, not Atari, own the rights to the games themselves. And that would be very easy to prove with the original contract they had with Accolade, how they transferred to Atari, and what happened to them if they did expire, revert as per bankruptcy etc.
e.g. when I took legal action against Take Two back in 1997 over Battlecruiser 3000AD, I still owned my works, IP, trademarks etc. TT only had the “rights” to distribute the works, and for a limited 5 year term. So when we settled, and I rescinded their “rights to distributed my works”, I was able to not only release the game for free, signed new deals with third-parties (e.g. GameTek UK) which TT has sold as sub-licensing, but I was also able to pull the game from retail store shelves. These rights which reverted, allowed me to release the game for free (to prevent TT and their partners from continuing to exploit them), as well as to later sign a deal with Interplay, who went on to release v2.0 (a fixed and more advanced version of the original) of the game about a year later. As the creator, not only do I own the IP, trademarks, copyrights etc, but also the characters, world etc - because I created all of them. There was no ambiguity because I never had a deal whereby a publisher was either licensing or buying them from me. TT was basically given the rights to distribute the game and pay me royalties. That’s it.
Owning a trademark or copyright had to be specific as to what they cover. To wit. Owning the “Star Control trademark” absolutely doesn’t mean that you also own the rights to characters, world, body of work (games) etc. Similarly, owning the copyright to Star Control 3 is restricted to that in its entirety. You could make a flight simulator and call it Star Control 3. But if it contains any assets (word, characters, lore etc) which weren’t part of the body of work that was sold, that’s infringement (especially if the original owners can prove ownership).
Here is where it gets hairy for P&F and is the crux of this fiasco.
- Brad bought the Star Control trademark. Which now means that ANYONE selling ANY Star Control game, was now in violation. This is PRECISELY why Atari had to sign a trademark use agreement with GoG in order for them to continue selling the legacy SC 1-3 games. And Paul knew this. He also HAD to have known that with Brad now owning that trademark, they were now in the same violation that GoG was in, and which led to their agreement with Atari. Which means that P&F (or ANYONE else for that matter) simply CANNOT legally sell SC 1-3 without getting permission from Brad. And Brad can’t sell SC 1-2 because he absolutely, positively does NOT own the rights to the games.
- Brad bought the copyright to Star Control 3: This is exclusive to that body of work. Which means that Brad effectively owns the copyright to that [released] game. And since he has the Star Control trademark, he can absolutely sell SC3 if he chose. But here’s the problem. A court now has to decide if that ownership indeed covers the lore, world, characters etc that were part of SC1-2, and also used in SC-3 (and no SC:O). But not so fast - it gets worse. If there is no contractual evidence that the copyright to SC-3 includes everything associated with it - including the entire body of work (game, characters, world, lore etc), that means they now have to figure out who owns what.
ps: Brad owns Star Control 3 in its entirety. see Exhibit D, page 231
However, the email from Brad on Oct 16, 2013 (see p 240) is troubling because I found no evidence that what he bought is what he claimed there. I looked at this back when the sparks started to fly, and your citing these links gave me the opportunity to take another look. Still don’t see it.
Similarly, his email of Oct 17, 2017 is equally troubling because he claims to own rights that I don’t see listed in what he bought from Atari. And it’s not in the bankruptcy court listing either. :(
And as I previously stated, this is where a court comes in because clearly Brad probably convened with attorneys who probably gave him more clarity as to what he actually bought and owned. This is the only thing that I can think of that would explain him going from one extreme (agreeing that P&F own the rights to characters, SC 1/2 works etc) to saying that they don’t, and that he does.
But all of this pertains to SC 1-3. That ST:O exists, and uses legacy works (lore, characters, world) from Star Control, is where the real fireworks are because if the court decides that Brad had no rights to use any of those in that game, he’s got a massive multi-million Dollar damages problem of “studio killing” proportions.
But the hilarious part is that he now owns the trademarks to games (SF 1-3) that the original creators no longer have the rights to sell, without his permission. Like I said, IP stuff is hilarious - and brutal. It’s like you owning a car, but can’t use or sell it because you don’t own the engine that makes it work. Meanwhile, Brad now owns Star Control 3 (the shitty one no less) the “game”
There, I’ve done my best to be impartial, but that’s where I am with this.
If this were me, having failed at reaching a deal with P&F, I’d have made Star Control 4 based on the lore, assets, world, characters in SC3. Which is almost what ST:O is, except that P&F contend that they own certain rights to the lore, characters etc.
I can’t imagine an attorney not looking at this and thinking that basically what Brad paid $300K (+ legal and court costs) for was the trademark to Star Control, which (like Atari → GoG) allowed them to sell Star Control 3 (which they also bought), while having the ability to ask anyone (e.g. GoG, P&F) selling Star Control 1-2 for a license to use the Star Control trademark. There aren’t enough lols for this one, but seriously, that’s basically it - all of it.
You meet the not-Arilou just outside the Sol system. Hard to miss actually. They don’t identify themselves, but they are 100% identical to the race sold as the Arilou previously. The advice they give suggests everyone will run into them, so not sure what’s going on there. (Edit: sorry, I now notice that @Rock8man actually beat me to the punch here.)
See also @Shuma’s video posted earlier.
I think this is more or less the same conclusion most of us here have arrived at? It’s also the reason why Ur Quan Masters is called what it’s called now, and not Star Control II (since Stardock owns the trademark, with P&F owning basically everything else that’s in SC1 and SC2).
While i have some minor quibbles over some of your wording, by and large I agree with your analysis. This is a business failure of epic proportions.
More to the point, I cannot imagine any lawyer giving Stardock the advice “Eh, just plunge on ahead and we’ll figure it all out later.” My eating-popcorn-from-the-sidelines analysis is that having won a settlement against a soft target in the past, Brad figured he could bluff his way to a similar settlement against P+F, and has told his lawyers “Figure out a way to make a minimally plausible argument so we can scare them into settling.” Knowing the level of sophistication of software developers in the valley, I think this was a major, major miscalculation on Brad’s part.
My handicapping of where this actually ends up in the end is: Stardock pays a reasonable license fee to P+F for use of their copyrighted works, P+F make a public statement saying how glad they are to have reached a happy settlement encouraging their fans to buy SC:O, Ghost of the Precursors maybe ships or doesn’t ship someday but is never called Star Control. Nobody pays anyone else’s court costs.
In other words, we end up back exactly where we were in September 2017, except both Stardock and P+F have paid lawyers lots of money, and Brad put the launch of his game under an embarrassing cloud in the short term. [golf clap]
I just don’t think that’s supported by the evidence.
Literally the first thing Brad writes to Reiche and Ford is that he “bought whatever rights Atari has to Star Control”. Not “the rights to Star Control”. In the same email Brad asks for a license agreement on the lore and writes: “This would put beyond any speculation on who owns the game universe (you)”. This is before Reiche has replied even once. It’s obvious that Stardock knew before that first contacdt that they weren’t buying the copyrights or other forms of creative rights on SC1/2.
And when Reiche writes that they own the copyrights on SC1/2, Brad immediately responds and agrees that it’s his reading of the agreements too. If this was coming as a surprise or if Stardock had totally skipped the due diligence and not read those agreements, you’d expect a delay as they go back to talk with their lawyers.
It is probably true that until that point he thought that obviously Reiche/Ford would be willing to license the lore. Why would they turn down free money?
That’s not what they are claiming. The list of things that demonstrate substantial similarly is not a list of things they claim any exclusive ownership of.
I can’t imagine P&F releasing a game without Star Control in the name. So any settlement (not the totally-not-hilarious version that Brad sent them before) probably includes them having irrevocable and perpetual rights to use that trademark in their game.
Not that they even intended on making another Star Control game. I’m not buying that argument because to me it appears as if they started pushing that in order to bolster the argument that they are still attempting to exploit their creative works.
In other words, we end up back exactly where we were in September 2017, except both Stardock and P+F have paid lawyers lots of money, and Brad put the launch of his game under an embarrassing cloud in the short term.
Yeah, there’s that.
Huh? Why can’t you imagine it when doing just that it is their stated intent and is in fact exactly what they announced?
Valid points, but I’m not sure if you actually realize that you’re just basically agreeing with me, though you are inferring the opposite. Let me break down my statement (which you excerpted)
- Brad contacted P&L after the purchase. We already know - as fact - what the inquiry was about
- It was through the back and forth with P&L, that he came to realize that what he bought wouldn’t allow him to make the game that he wanted to - BECAUSE - without the co-operation of P&L, he simply couldn’t.
Then, somewhere along the line, attorneys got involved - and they were like “Yeah, you can totally do that. F*ck those guys”
@dsmart, earlier you asked what value mentioning the lawsuit in a review could provide to everyday gamers, seeming mostly to come to the standpoint that everyone who might be PO’ed at one party or the other over the rights stuff is probably already invested enough to know this situation, and that the random passerby on IGN or Gamespot would derive no useful purchasing information from a mention.
Wayyyyy up the thread, two days ago (but, I think, before your participation began in earnest), I outlined the areas that the lawsuit concerned me as a gamer, albeit an invested one, that went beyond “this side/that side are dicks.”
To reiterate cuz I don’t feel like scrolling up and finding the old one, though:
- A massive legal struggle is going to be very expensive for someone for sure, and maybe for everyone. Maybe catastrophically expensive. Maybe “the whole kit and kaboodle” expensive (though, I suspect, not likely). Since a lot of value-add from some recent Stardock products has arisen from long-tail support with multiple substantial expansions and lots of flavorful DLC, I could absolutely envision a future where the results of the legal fight leave them in a position where they can’t, or reasonably shouldn’t, continue dumping money into the fire, and abandon the game in its present state. Which is basically fine, more or less, but it’ll be in a better place in a year or two if they do their usual thing with it. And of course, for the Lifetime Founder Preorder customers, the potential of their very large extra investment not producing lots of after-release freebie content would be frustrating. Though those folks would have had to be served by pre-release news, since the devs held the review embargo until the game was out.
- Additionally, some of Brad’s replies here and elsewhere can easily be read as their having added in some old aliens into the game (specifically the Arilou and Melnorme were mentioned) in order to bolster their new trademark claims on those alien races against P&F. Basically a sort of “see we’re using these aliens in commerce” kind of thing, was my understanding of the point he made. While, as a fan of the original titles, I would normally be glad to see old races inclusions in general (obviously with whoever their owner might be’s permission), I am less happy with the idea of some potentially substantial game elements being the product of legal decisionmaking rather than game design decisionmaking. You meet the Arilous very early in the game, and the interaction I’ve had with them leads me to believe that they’ll continue to play a notable plot and game flow role throughout the title. AKA, legal is leading some decisionmaking here, for a not-insubstantial part of the game, which makes me uncomfortable personally.
I think these two things can reflect valid concerns arising from the legal brouhaha that don’t depend on either A) the reader caring about P&F’s claims specifically, or B) the reader disliking Brad/Stardock.
In other words, we end up back exactly where we were in September 2017, except both Stardock and P+F have paid lawyers lots of money, and Brad put the launch of his game under an embarrassing cloud in the short term.
A cloud? Maybe 30 people in the world care about this.
You can’t be this dense - though your posts are clear evidence that you’re probably not faking it.
Which part of “I can’t imagine” is somehow related to whether or not people - known to lie, change their minds etc - aren’t likely to do JUST THAT?
I said I can’t imagine it. But yet, somehow you’re claiming that my imagination is somehow misguided because they CLAIM that’s what they’re GOING TO DO? Have they actually RELEASED SAID GAME? So HOW do you know that between now and then (if that ever happens), that they won’t change their mind, thus inclined to make the use of Star Control as part of any settlement with Brad?
Jesus. Man, common sense is totally free. You just have to opt into making use of it.
I am pointing to evidence that they are on record not wanting to do what you imagine. It is unfortunate that merely pointing out clear and obvious evidence that contradicts your imagination drives you to straight to hurling abuse.
So to sum, to support your point you have your imagination and a really thin skin. To support mine I have the statements and actions of the principals.
Have a nice day.
Honestly, I don’t remember enough of SC2 (I should really play some UQM) to say, but the aliens that are shown to be the Arilou dlc are in the game. In my interaction with them they wouldn’t tell me anything about themselves, but it obviously is the same art assets.
This was your opening position:
The way I read post of yours I replied to is that your position had shifted to Brad finding out about the rights split during the email exchange with Reiche in July 2013, not years later. “what Brad bought was tainted by claims he obviously wasn’t aware of at the time”.
And now this latest post seems to say that Brad knew what they’d bought before that exchange, but just didn’t realize before that discussion that he wasn’t going to get a licensing deal.
So yeah, I don’t know if we’re agreeing or not since your apparent position changes after every post.
Here’s a youtube of meeting the Arilou in SC2.
And you just made my point for me.
It is unfortunate that merely pointing out clear and obvious evidence that contradicts your imagination drives you to straight to hurling abuse.
While it’s easy to concede the “abuse” point, my tongue-in-cheek comment is no more different than what you’ve similarly used in the past.
To wit: “So to sum, to support your point you have your imagination and a really thin skin.”
To support mine I have the statements and actions of the principals.
Do you know what “evidence” actually means? I would invite you to look it up. You pointing to a third-party statement (which for all intent and purposes is hearsay - and thus not admissible as evidence) and confusing that with actual intangible evidence is the wrong hill to die on. And I already pointed out why that is: It’s not tangible evidence if it’s SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
Again, this isn’t hard. It’s just common sense.
I took a few screenshots when they popped up – they also say very similar things to what the Arilou said in SC2.
Edit: makes me wonder what’s in that Arilou DLC exactly…
What about using the new name, but being able to say they are the creators of Star Control 1&2? That worked out well enough for Sports Interactive, though there wasn’t a 25 year lapse between their Championship Manager and Football Manager games. I imagine if they get to call their game Star Control, then Stardock will feel that it is going to undercut their sales.