This is all nonsense. But, let’s go…
You mean aside from the fact that I’ve been following and tweeting about this on social media since the case was filed, and that I knew about the furor before it was even public?
I entered this thread when someone pinged (I deliberately don’t engage in other threads here as I used to because discussions tend to be in bad faith, littered with dick waving bs, and some participants tend to be unapologetic assholes) me because they knew that I had been following this since the very beginning. Though not as fervently as my Star Citizen campaign.
I refrained from engaging in this very thread and openly declared that I couldn’t be trusted to be unbiased because of my decades long relationship with Brad; and because unlike most, I don’t hide behind a facade. But yet still, I’ve tried my best to see this farce from both sides - and I still think P&F don’t stand a chance. But IP law is weird, so it can go either way.
Not to mention the fact that because the general consensus toward Brad makes any reasonable discussions here related to him, devolve into the usual bs.
While you continue to completely ignore the facts and contexts of my post, even as you argue in bad faith, you and your ilk are the reason that discussions like this head South. Despite the consistency of what I’ve posted, your incessant need to disregard and ignore my comments, while pulling on the thread that binds your socks, is precisely what bad faith is about. It’s almost as if you really think that most posters here are complete morons who can’t put 2+2 together and understand what I’ve written (I tend to be verbose for a reason).
I mean, here is an example:
What exact “claims which weren’t previously known” are you talking about here? Everyone, including Brad, agreed from the start that Reiche and Ford owned the copyrights and that Stardock could not use the SC2 lore without a license.
After everything I’ve written, you actually wrote that. This despite the fact that - right there in my previous post - I gave a timeline (2013 - 2017) which clearly (I thought) explains my statements. You completely ignored it because you picked a tenuous position that’s devoid of any/all merit, and refuse to correct it despite an abundance of facts.
Let’s try this again, let me know if you want me to grab a box of crayons and draw you an illustration. I’m an artist, so that’s probably easier than words.
If Brad knew in 2017 - four years later - the rights that he had, why do you think he bothered to reach out to P&L back in 2013 about specific rights that he knew he didn’t have? That being the case, why then does a lawsuit exist if not to assert those rights (which, btw have nothing to do with the rights he already knew P&F own fair and square). Why do you think those 2013 - 2017 emails are key pieces of evidence in the case?
Your harping on “You claimed repeatedly that Brad didn’t understand what Stardock had actually bought, and only found out about it much later” is a deflective tactic that you’re trying to use to detract from the fact that you’re absolutely incorrect in claiming that’s not the case. But instead of accepting it as my opinion, even as you try to shove yours, you’re still trying to offer your opinion as fact even though the public evidence completely contradicts them.
Brad’s email to P&F from 2013 was pretty clear and straightforward in what he was asking. At NO time in those early exchanges did he ever bring up the rights he was later asserting. He did that in 2017, which is FOUR years later. That you think someone would wait four years to assert their ownership rights, especially for a property that was already in active development and most likely to result in litigation, is the height of hilarity.
Once again, my OPINION is that back in 2013, Brad couldn’t have known the extent of what he actually bought and owned - or that the purchase would lead to litigation questioning what he bought. His 2013 correspondence (assuming they give the full picture) are proof of this. His emails in 2017 in which he - for the first time - explains and indicated he would assert those rights - is further proof that along the way, he must have (through research, attorneys etc) figured out that he had owned more than he thought he did, and that the ownership of some of those assets was now in doubt. I wrote all this before, as clearly as I could, but you chose to ignore them because your penchant for arguing in bad faith prevents you from giving any leeway, let alone come to the conclusion that your reading of my comment is flawed - and incorrect.
As to the “phantom” claims, having taken the time to read your other posts in the thread regarding this, I can see now why you’re harping on what I wrote. It completely unravels your months of unfounded drivel which are devoid of any/all merit. You and others have been consistent in the opinion that 4 years later, having been unable to get anything from P&F, that Brad suddenly decided to make shit up and sue. But be that as it may, yes, it’s bad optics for Brad - and I actually previously wrote MANY words in support of that notion. You should probably read them. Slowly.
The analogy that I can come up with is that I bought a painting at the flea market, thinking it was a copy. Then years later, when I tried to sell it, I come to find out that it was in fact an original master. I couldn’t have come to that later conclusion without research or getting an expert opinion.
At the end of the day, whether Brad is lying or not is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is whether or not he owns the rights being asserted in the lawsuit. The correspondence in 2013 are completely and utterly immaterial to the case because at the end of the day, the defense is simple: “I didn’t know at the time what I later came to find out”. I am certain that it’s probably lost on you that the back and forth with P&F is probably what prompted him to go back and take a closer look at the purchase materials, paper trail etc - all leading to the 2017 showdown. I mean, a critical piece of email from Brad explains all of this - in detail.
Whether he lied, came up with “phantom claims” etc is completely immaterial because at the end of the day, only the paper trail proving ownership will prevail in a court of law. It’s almost as if you live in world where you’ve never seen lawsuits whereby everyone thinks they have all the facts and evidence, then at some point (usually at a pivotal moment) some previously unknown piece of evidence or witness pops up out of nowhere.
TIP: Jesse, you know very well that owning an IP doesn’t mean you own the licensing rights to it. Which is precisely the primary point of contention here. Brad isn’t claiming that P&F aren’t the IP owners. He’s asserting that, like Accolade and Atari before him, he has the licensing (among others) rights to the IP. It’s no different from Stan Lee and Marvel. And they had a similar battle for years on end. This sort of thing isn’t new - at all.
