1998

I am not wrong and I am serious.

If we go under the assumption that Brad is a smart guy, which I think is a relatively safe assumption, then we know that he knew exactly what he was buying and there was no “challenge” to anything. In fact, his actions as we know them from his contact with Paul & Fred post-purchase just put an even finer point on the fact that he knew what they had and what he wanted to have. He badgered them to get it, until he decided to sue them to try to steal it.

That’s how I see it. We all have opinions.

1999

With all due respect, Dave, you’re not going to get a concession out of Derek, only slippery language and insults. There are better ways to spend your time.

2000

Also there are his own public statements that clearly show he knew he had no rights to P&F’s IP. He knew he just had the “Star Control” trademark (and bits of SC3). The story only changed years later.

2001

Except that I haven’t disputed any of that because there are facts which support it. Unfortunately, when you mix facts with opinions, things get murky.

This was your claim:

You are wrong.

This is closer to the supported FACTS:

It is largely irrelevant when or how he found out that he didn’t own what he thought he did. The FACT is that he got challenged - by P&F - based on what he was claiming that he owned. Hence the lawsuit. Seriously, how hard is this? It’s just plain English language comprehension.

Thankfully, not even P&F are making that claim.

Again, the way the law works, it doesn’t matter what Brad tried to do or say before or after the fact. That’s why in most cases and/or investigations, you see phrases like “Upon further knowledge and notice…”, “Upon receiving additional information…”, “It was later discovered that…”

Someone could burglarize my house and I only discover that they stole the TV. Then I later found out that they also stole my antique watch. You get to amend your police report. It happens.

You could sue someone for one thing, then during discovery find out that it was even worse than you knew. You get to amend your complaint. It happens.

You could get pulled over for driving with a broken tail light. Then the cops find out that you have an outstanding bench warrant. It happens.

Need I go on?

And at the end of the day, only the court will determine whether or not Brad’s lawsuit has any merit, and also whether or not everything he did and said prior to the lawsuit, known or unknown, are material to the case. Everything else is just opinionated conjecture-laden noise.

So harping on what he did or said is an absolute non-starter.

2002

That’s called arguing in bad faith. Why should there be a concession in an active discussion? This isn’t Reddit. Get a grip.

2003

NONE of that is relevant. See what I just wrote.

2004

You don’t get to decide what is relevant. Plus your claims about what he purchased being attacked weren’t made in a court of law, they were made in this forum. The prior statements are completely relevant to your assertions.

2005

Yeah I do, because it was a stated opinion. Just like yours. Except, my reasoning is that the law won’t care. All that matters are what goes on during discovery and the trial (if it goes that far). As I mentioned above, there may be other unknown facts.

Again - if this was all cut and dry, the case wouldn’t have survived a motion to dismiss. Obviously there are some merits to the claims otherwise it wouldn’t have passed that bar. That’s how the law works.

That’s a lot of nonsense. Of course I am responding to what’s posted here, regardless of whether or not they are a material fact of the case.

And I never made any claims about him being “attacked” for what he purchased. You did. I said that he was “challenged” based on what he believed he bought and owned. And that challenge, whether or not it has merit, is what led to a lawsuit.

ps: See @Nightgaunt autistically excellent timeline; specifically the events between Dec 1st - 8th, 2017.

2006

Really, semantics?

His prior statements clearly demonstrate what he believed he owned at the time. I know you love to argue but come on, this is ridiculous.

2007

There’s nothing ridiculous about it. I have written an extensive post which I believe outlines specifically how “challenged” applies, and why it accurately supports my statement of fact regarding his belief that he owned what he said he did. The rest is up to the law to determine. You and I can argue about it until the cows come home, and it won’t change a thing.

Don’t let facts get in the way. Also deflection doesn’t work with me. I’m autistic like that.

2008

Thank you for identifying your approach to debating,

2009

I believe he was aiming that at others lol.

I’m.just amazed Derek has the time and energy to keep all of this up!

2010

Yeah, I know. Derek and I have been around the block plenty of times in the past. I thought I should go ahead and put out there what I think specifically to add to why I think people get upset by his text. While we can’t be sure of Brad’s intentions, we do have a long history of Brad’s actions alongside the factual chain of events that make my assessment look like the right one to me, and apparently to Derek too. He’s just splitting hairs over using the word challenged to indicate Brad wasn’t getting his way three days after he bought a name.

Thanks though. I appreciate the sanity check. I have lost mine here at Qt3 a number of times recently.

2011

Yup. And it’s all good man. People like us don’t fare well in echo chambers :)

But assuming intent implies a personality trait. And while Brad and I (like you and I have so many times over the decades) have had our spats, I know him personally. I have absolutely no reason to believe that he had any sort of hostile of fraudulent intent. I don’t say this lightly. In fact, from the sequence of events, it’s clear to see how he went from A (reaching out) to Z (lawsuit). He had a game that was being released. A game that he had spent millions on developing and which was facing a serious threat during an imminent release. He seemingly had no choice. That’s why I take issue to the rhetoric and opinions that he somehow had ill intent, and/or nefarious reasons for doing what he did. As they say, money is the root of all evil; and with that amount of money at stake, you have very few choices when faced with a situation like this.

I’m not. But then again I am a detail oriented person. So while it may appear to be splitting hairs, it’s about context.

Also, it wasn’t “three days after he bought a name”. I posted the timeline specifically in support of what I was saying - just to save people having to scroll. When he bought the assets, he had an idea and belief of what he owned and was entitled to. He tried to assert that after getting nowhere with a collaboration of sorts. So he decided to go it alone after ownership of what he believe he owned, was challenged (that’s precisely what it is, and in fact is a legal term for what happened) by P&F. Next thing you know, we’re in a lawsuit.

I think some of you who have a negative opinion of Brad, are allowing your personal feels to cloud and direct your better judgement. I would hope that if something were to happen to me, that those I’ve fought and argued with wouldn’t use that as an opportunity to attack me regardless of premise and/or facts. But then again, people are broken. So there’s that.

2012

The ownership of the trademark was not challenged until after the suit was filed. That challenge is a part of the defense against the suit.

There were public acknowledgements that Stardock did not own any rights to the lore like the alien names. So that wasn’t challenged until it was asserted after the suit when Stardock changed their tune.

Do you really view P&F’s use of the name in their blog post a challenge to Stardock’s ownership of the trademark? Or are you just talking about the sale of the classic games which was challenged prior to the suit? That was the only real “challenge” to what Stardock thought it owned prior to the suit being filed.

2013

See, the difference between you and Brad (IMO anyway) is I never feel like you do things with malicious intent. We may have argued points like this in the past, but I always feel like your heart is in the right place and at the end of the day you’re a pretty good guy just trying to make the games you like.

I’ve seen enough with Brad to think otherwise.

Sorry, that’s just how it is with him. He’s not you and you are not him and I tend to look at the individual.

I think the one thing you’re discounting too much in your own assessment of things is that Brad was practically bending over backwards to get these guys on board until suddenly he wasn’t. I really don’t think he’d go that route if he thought he bought it all on the day his company paid all that money. He’s too smart for that. If he thought he owned it all from day one, he just would’ve run them over like he’s trying to do now, maybe in a less angry fashion. That’s why I think he has always known exactly what he bought. And realistically, he could’ve made his game without ever messing with them, like he said he planned to do publically.

That’s where we obviously disagree. The thing that really rubs me the wrong way is that he specifically stated that Paul and Fred owned all the copyrights to the guts of it all and he owned the trademark on the name and the stuff that was in 3 they didn’t create, and the paperwork we’ve seen bears that out. That tells me he knew exactly who owned what. Then he files a suit years later saying, “No, we own it all!” which is rather obviously false, even if you remove the later knowledge that even the ownership of the trademark to “Star Control” might have lapsed before Atari folded and sold it (potentially selling something that wasn’t theirs to sell, and a newer wrinkle).

Do I agree that he has all this money invested and seems to want to protect his investment? Yes. I do agree that’s why it’s in litigation now. On the other hand, we’ve also been able to read some spiteful and rather hateful remarks by him on the web indicating he is out for revenge as much as he is ownership of what, again IMO, isn’t rightfully his. The courts will eventually decide.

2014

I agree with all of this. In fact, if you scroll up to my earlier posts when I first appeared, I expressed similar concerns about the sequence of events (which weren’t clear to me at the time, until I read them in this thread).

I don’t think we disagree on specific points though. What we disagree on relates to people saying that Brad acting with malicious intent, as opposed to someone who had invested millions that was now at stake. Again, I know him, and I am just not buying it. Yes, he changed his stance - for whatever reason. But when people do stupid shit, regardless of merit, and lawsuits happen, that’s when we leave it up to the court system to judge.

…and there’s that.

2015

Let me see if I can break this whole “challenge” statement further because apparently, despite my best efforts, there are people who still aren’t “getting” it.

The original statement:

“someone buys something they believe they own fair and square, then get challenged on it”

==July 18 2013==

  • Atari auctions its Star Control assets to Stardock for a reported $300-400k
  • what Stardock bought were the Star Control trademark and publishing rights to the three classic games
  • Paul & Fred acknowledge in an email that Stardock owns the trademark for the Star Control name

==July 22 2013==

  • Stardock announces that it has acquired the rights to Star Control and intends to make a reboot inspired by Star Control II

==Oct 4 2017==

  • Brad claims that Stardock has the license to use P&F universe under the 1988 Accolade license agreement without needing their permission.

The challenge (of Brad’s claims) phase begins…

==Oct 6 2017==

  • P&F inform Brad that Stardock does not have a license to use their IP, and that all rights to their work reverted back to them long a time ago.
  • Brad responds and says “there is no disagreement that you own the IP,” but claims that Stardock has the publishing rights and licenses to the IP under the 1988 agreement. Later he sends another email claiming the 1988 license agreement was still in effect.

==Oct 7 2017==

  • P&F write to Brad insisting the 1988 license agreement with Accolade was expired

==Dec 1 2017==

  • P&F write a blog insisting that Accolade/Atari/Stardock’s rights to publish the Star Control games ended when the license agreement ended, sometime in 2000
  • P&F send a notice of infringement to Steam and request the removal of the classic games from the storefront. Stardock sends a counter-notice. The games remain on the Steam store

You know the rest.

2016

I think you must have forgotten my reply from the last time you made that claim:

No judge has yet had the chance to make any ruling on the merits of any of the claims in the case. Judges will only do so in response to a motion to dismiss, and the first such motion was just filed a couple of weeks ago. Every single claim from both sides could be total bunk, and we probably won’t find out until May.

2017

You know you could have just said “I meant the publishing rights” and saved the condescension. You choose verbosity over clarity which isn’t anyone’s fault but your own. You even admit your posts aren’t clear, but yet you seem to have this need to go with defensive snark every time you are asked nicely for a simple clarification.