2019

lol you could put that on derek’s tombstone… “Verbosity over clarity”

2020

That’s your perception, and I’m not responsible for your feelings. I don’t have to write something six ways from Sunday for you to understand it. Especially when I continue to cite sources and explain my reasoning. That’s on you - and I don’t care.

It’s hilarious that you need me to actually have to explain what “challenge” I was referring to, when the general consensus is that Brad’s entire claim hinges on not just trademark infringement (why would anyone allow an unrelated third-party to use a trademark they own?), but also on publishing rights - both of which, going by the sequence of events and claims (you should try reading the court filings), hinge on both. Again, that’s on you; so don’t blame me for your lack of reading comprehension skills.

2021

You are confusing malice with defense. They are different. But don’t take my word for it though, just look it up.

IP owners have every right to defend their property, you don’t have to like it - and they shouldn’t have to care what you think. Every action that’s taken in defense - of anything - can be attributed to malice. That’s the nature of the beast.

But again, before you go off with the deflection, what I’ve been saying is specifically related to the fact that Brad isn’t this horrid person that you guys who hate him, try to make him out to be. Nobody’s perfect, but if you spent just five fucking minutes to remove the gnat from your eye, you’d be able to see clearly and thus spend less time talking about the one in the other person’s eye.

Yes, we all know that he’s taken certain actions and written some shitty things related to this whole farce. So what? And did he just wake up one morning and decided that he was going to be this evil mean bastard for no reason? Give me a f*cking break. Anytime a person or even a company takes action to protect their property, a bunch of clowns take it upon themselves to be the knights of moral justice, even though their angst is completely and patently immaterial to the general scheme of things. It’s like you shooting a burglar in your house; and instead of people focusing on the defense and potential loss of life, we’re lamenting the death of a burglar, while talking bs about gun ownership.

Brad has every right to protect what he believes that he owns. How he goes about doing it, good, bad, or ugly, is on him.

This is what arguing in bad faith, while twisting facts to fit a narrative, looks like. While you see someone’s attempt to “steal” something, others who aren’t completely insane and stupid, see an attempt to protect an IP and to assert ownership rights to same.

Nobody cares. That’s on you. Look up the Great Man myth, then come back when you have learned something worthy of engaging discourse. While you’re at it, you should try to read up on how “objective reasoning” works. I’m quite certain that you will find that it’s quite possible to support someone while being objective as to their actions and words. When you throw out the baby with the bathwater, you lose the right to be taken seriously because the world - and indeed life - isn’t all cut and dry.

2022

Yes, you are correct - but it looks like you took my post out of context when you excerpted only a part of it.

2023

Please, someone smack me for doing this. Nothing good will come of it.

Smacks Shuma serially

It’s like you shooting a burglar in your house

It’s like shooting someone and taking their house.

In the spirit of taking other people’s stuff, Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

2024

Harsh, but fair :)

2025

Except it isn’t in defense, it’s in an offense against a target that wasn’t the one who potentially sold him an incomplete “product”, and, as he said, a target he didn’t even need to care about to make a game.
Making an offense into a defense is atwisting of the truth as well.

To hate him, we’d have to care. Paraphrasing you, you think we woke up one morning and decided to dislike him for no reason? His words and behavior spell out a very particular type of personality you learn to be very wary of. I had forgotten how he was, and been a happy costumer for a while, until he had to be him.
Of course it’s mostly immaterial to a lawsuit, unless one happens to fuck up and try to prove how smart you are.

Instead of talking about the potential loss of life, we’re talking about actual loss of life, yes, since not all criminals are irredeemable evil incarnate whose life is worth less than a few trinkets. Well, the blue-color ones, white color I’m not so sure.

Smacks Shuma

Err, happy turkey genocide day y’all, or whatever you do up there.

2026

For a few minutes there you were able to converse like a normal person, but it’s back to idiotic bluster I see. Have fun with that. I’m done engaging someone so constantly confused and clueless and hostile to any correction. You can bitch about people not understanding you can blame others for your faults but the thread makes pretty clear who has reading comprehension, among other, issues.

2027

Too short, ask Derek to dress it up a bit.

2028

2029

You - quite literally - can’t be serious. Do you actually know how offense and defense work? Here’s the thing. Go back and look at the timeline of events. It’s painfully clear that when Stardock were challenged on the merits of their ownership claim, Brad moved to defend against that by asserting ownership (which P&F obviously didn’t agree with). So, please explain to me how that’s “turning offense into defense”.

…and there it is. Now please extrapolate that into this whole “Brad said/did these things, so he’s evil incarnate” narrative. There will be a quiz later.

2030

We believe he’s likely acting in bad faith. That’s it. And only it, “likely” and “bad faith”, with the caveat that it’s a guess because a) we have only glimpses into the merits; b) none of us are experts, because those know better than to give an opinion. Oh, and also that that doesn’t necessarily have a legal impact.

This isn’t Star Citizen. where the facts are mostly clear.

2031

That you have this will to impose your inflated sense of morality and understanding, while not doing anything to move the discussion forward, is precisely how we end up with exchanges like this. I don’t have to agree with you, and I don’t care if you agree with me. That’s the nature of discourse and debate. If you’re out to make friends, that’s on you - and I don’t care because echo chambers aren’t my thing and I don’t care enough about people to be concerned about perception.

You can call what I say “idiotic bluster” because you’ve failed spectacularly at making any reasonable point, let alone advancing the discussion. Instead, you spend time sniping at inconsequential bs, while using deflection as a mechanism to steer the discussion in a direction that’s not conducive to meaningful discourse.

I’m not bitching about people not understanding me. It’s one thing to say/write something and have it misinterpreted by those who aren’t interested in arguing in good faith, and it’s another to ignore any/all discourse and instead focus on attacking the person whose narrative you disagree with. That’s a sign of weakness.

When I get challenged on something, I do my best to bring clarity - regardless of whether I am right or wrong. That’s how arguing in good faith works. I don’t have to agree with someone’s bs just because I want to fit in, or because I want to be part of a group that’s dug in on an otherwise failed narrative that isn’t going anywhere.

And for me, being wrong about something isn’t a Black mark. I have no problems being wrong, and I never saw a hill I wasn’t prepared to die on. Clearly you forget who you’re arguing with. People who are willing to accept that they are wrong about something, are the ones who end up learning something worthy of the time spent.

Meaningful discourse is about debating the merits of a stance and/or opinion. Taking your ball and going home because you have nothing to add that moves it forward, let alone supports a messed up narrative, is how cowards operate. You’re a coward.

You spent several posts lamenting the merits of my using “challenge”. And even though I spent several posts bringing clarity to your otherwise obtuse and immaterial counter, that still wasn’t good enough for you because “winning” an argument tends to be a worthier cause than just accepting that you misunderstood what was being written. That’s on you. And I don’t care how you feel about it. There are pills for that.

2032

2033

Agreed. So please explain to me how that’s different from what I’ve been saying all along?

Indeed.

2034

No, you don’t. When questioned, you’ll write some long incoherent ramble about 10 other things but not the actual issue. Then you’ll say that you’ve already answered the question, even if literally nobody in the thread has understood what you meant. Then you’ll say that you don’t care about whether anyone understands what you wrote.

Those are not the actions of somebody looking to argue in good faith. The least you could do is admit it like a grownup.

2035

I realize now I forgot you had just made your position about the defense/offense clear and that it was bad manners/bad arguing to bring it up again like I did. Sorry about that pointless part.
The issue is that Stardock is not suing to keep the their game legal. They’re suing for the copyright to SC2 to, supposedly: sell an old, open-sourced game; be able to use a setting he claimed (to several of us directly) he didn’t need to. The trademark is not in dispute, so they’re not defending their game.

With regards to legality, none. But you write as if everyone expecting a bad outcome for Stardock is a person with ulterior intentions of a crusade against them. I was fine not saying anything until this, because SC:O is not worth the bother of caring at all.

2036

If you would cite an example, that would be great.

As I said above, show one example and we’ll go from there. My disagreeing with someone isn’t somehow a reason to claim that I’m wrong and not admitting it. So please, by all means, show me an instance were I was WRONG and did what you indicated above. And if you don’t, then you’re guilty of the same thing that you’re accusing me of doing.

2037

They’re suing for that and their trademark. There is no dispute to who owns the trademark. The dispute, as I understand it, is that P&F are using it to compete against him with their project. Then, Brad indicating that the licensing agreement is still in effect, and thus gives him the rights to those titles, is what P&F are seemingly challenging by saying that the rights expired years prior.

It’s interesting to note that nobody can legally sell any Star Control game, without running afoul of the trademark being owned by Stardock. So even if P&F are found to still own the rights (having not expired), they still can’t sell them without running afoul of Stardock owning the trademark (which isn’t in dispute).

Right.

2038

It is, as part of the defense they are trying to invalidate it.

However that is not an actual threat to the game. If the trademark is found to have been abandoned all that means is that the trademark can no longer be used as a cudgel against Paul and Fred. It would not affect the game or sales in any way. Stardock could just get a new trademark to maintain its exclusive ownership of the name.