Mondosapien wrote on Jan 3, 2019, 14:51:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 3, 2019, 02:41:
Bottom line: Paul and Fred own the copyright on two products that no one but they can touch. Meanwhile, Stardock owns the IP and exclusive rights to the name for everything else and can create games inspired by the ideas presented in Star Control 1 and 2.

This is a well-informed post, but there are a few points you've left out that make the issue less clear. First, Paul & Fred claim that SC1 and SC2 IP reverted to them when the licencing agreement they had with Accolade expired in April 2001, meaning Stardock couldn't have purchased the IP because Atari didn't own it. This is probably the most important part of the entire issue, and unfortunately we have to wait for the courts to decide the outcome.

As for the question of copyright protection, you are right that you can't copyright an idea. But as I understand it, you can copyright an expression of an idea. So, the idea of a "toy that transforms from a vehicle into a robot" can't be copyrighted, but a "boombox that transforms into an evil robot named Soundwave" is protected. I bet you won't find xenomorphs or WALL-E anywhere in Star Control: Origins. That's exactly what Stardock did. They included Arilou aliens. They look like Arilou, the behave like Arilou, and the are named Arilou. It can be argued that the Arilou are generic enough to not be covered by copyright, but again, that's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. I think Stardock is playing a game of "I'm not touching you" by including Arilou, and they may get burnt. We'll see what the courts say.

With these two points to consider, I think it's extreme to call Paul & Fred delusional.

Wait, didn't Atari get in trouble back in 2010 or 2013 for selling Star Control 1/2 on GOG without any royalties and then settled with Paul and Fred for x% of royalties for games sold on GOG? Then they had a battle with Stardock when they tried to sell those games on GOG?

If Atari didn't own it via Accolade since 2001 (and P&F released the source code to SC2 in 2002), how can they justify settling for royalties when they own all the IP at that point?

Kxmode wrote on Jan 3, 2019, 02:41:
Bottom line: Paul and Fred own the copyright on two products that no one but they can touch. Meanwhile, Stardock owns the IP and exclusive rights to the name for everything else and can create games inspired by the ideas presented in Star Control 1 and 2.

This is a well-informed post, but there are a few points you've left out that make the issue less clear. First, Paul & Fred claim that SC1 and SC2 IP reverted to them when the licencing agreement they had with Accolade expired in April 2001, meaning Stardock couldn't have purchased the IP because Atari didn't own it. This is probably the most important part of the entire issue, and unfortunately we have to wait for the courts to decide the outcome.

As for the question of copyright protection, you are right that you can't copyright an idea. But as I understand it, you can copyright an expression of an idea. So, the idea of a "toy that transforms from a vehicle into a robot" can't be copyrighted, but a "boombox that transforms into an evil robot named Soundwave" is protected. I bet you won't find xenomorphs or WALL-E anywhere in Star Control: Origins. That's exactly what Stardock did. They included Arilou aliens. They look like Arilou, the behave like Arilou, and the are named Arilou. It can be argued that the Arilou are generic enough to not be covered by copyright, but again, that's not as clear cut as you make it out to be. I think Stardock is playing a game of "I'm not touching you" by including Arilou, and they may get burnt. We'll see what the courts say.

With these two points to consider, I think it's extreme to call Paul & Fred delusional.

The following was posted on July 21, 2013 by Brad on the Stardock forums.

It won't be a continuation but more akin to a revisit (ala XCOM using Star Control 2 as the inspiration and start back before the earthlings were in any kind of slave shield). We'll be talking more about our plans as we go forward.

We won't be making any changes to the existing Star Control games. And Atari doesn't actually own the copyright on Star Control 1/2 so it's not like one could make a Star Control 2 HD or what have you without a license from Paul Reiche. And even if we did have rights to SC 1/2 I wouldn't touch them without his blessing.

I think what most Star Control fans are looking for is a new Star Control game where the inspiration comes from Star Control 2. They want a game with fun, adventure and top down ship battles like in Star Control 2 that all play within a fun sci fi universe. Preferably one with Ur-Quan and Spathi and lots of insults.

Ford and Reiche expressed many times over the past two decades a desire to reenter the Star Control universe, but the difficulty has always been acquiring the rights to the name, which were held by Accolade. I am sure this is something Chris Roberts is familiar with, which is why he opted to create a new Wing Commander universe with another name.

So let's take a trip down IP lane starting from Accolade. In April 1999, Accolade was acquired by Infogrames Entertainment for a combined sum of US$60 million (at that time, Infogrames owned the IP, rights, and Star Control name). The copyright for Star Control 1 and 2 remained with Ford and Reiche. In May 2009, Infogrames announced that it would change its corporate name to the Atari (at that time, Atari owned the IP, rights, and Star Control name). Meanwhile, the copyright for Star Control 1 and 2 remained with Ford and Reiche. In July 2013, Atari began to sell its game assets, the famous tripod logo, and the Atari name in a large auction. Outside the sale, Ford and Reiche continued to have copyright ownership of Star Control 1 and 2. A few highlights of the deal include:

- Rebellion Developments bought the Battlezone and MoonBase Commander games,
- Epic Gear bought The Backyard Sports franchise,
- Tommo acquired Humongous Inc. and over 100 different games (including games from the companies Accolade and MicroProse, and Math Grand Prix),
- Wargaming purchased Total Annihilation,
- Stardock bought Star Control

Through the IP trip, Stardock eventually became the legal owner of the IP, rights, and name: Star Control. What they did not, nor did any other business through the trip, ever own is the copyright on Star Control I and II. It remains with Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford until the copyright becomes public domain.

It is clear from the purchase and from what Brad wrote that he knew to buy the rights to Star Control came with limitations in that his company did not have permission to touch Star Control 1 and 2. However, under section 102 (b) of the United State's Copyright Law, it states: "In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work."

"Regardless of the form" means the user interface (one of the things Paul and Fred are arguing SC:O violated) and not covered by copyright law. It's one reason why so many websites look the same despite the fact there's a copyright notice at the bottom, or phones started looking like iPhones. You can't copyright an interface. As this article notes, a patent is the best option for copyrighting an interface (and even then there are limitations).

The exemption of ideas is also why for over a hundred years there have always been legal knockoffs. It has blessed us with a stream of FPS clones, then WOW/MMORPG clones, then MOBA clones, then trading card game clones, battle royale clones, and so on. It's given us Gobots and Yu-Gi-Oh. And the list is endless.

Star Control: Origins is inspired by Star Control 1 or 2. That is well within the exclusive right Stardock has of the game. Conversely, if Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford wanted to make a follow-up Star Control game, and call it Star Control, they legally cannot. They would have to license the rights to use the name from Stardock, which, judging by the delusional actions, is likely to be a "No" from Stardock.

The IANAL conclusion is clear-cut. Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford are delusional if they believe striking a DMCA notice on a product legally owned by Stardock with the rights they possess isn't going to have dire consequences on them. Conversely, perhaps they know that, and the move is a hell mary driven by rage and ego.

Bottom line: Paul and Fred own the copyright on two products that no one but they can touch. Meanwhile, Stardock owns the IP and exclusive rights to the name for everything else and can create games inspired by the ideas presented in Star Control 1 and 2.

Mondosapien wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 13:31:
[...]

You are right, I was a bit dismissive. Maybe I shouldn't have been, but I do think some parts are worthy of it.

Such as the part where I quoted the judge and was saying "In other words, he didn't believe they'd just remove it." I was talking about VALVE immediately taking the game down when they got the DMCA. Its incredibly rare for anyone to keep something up after getting a DMCA (and sometimes not even restoring it after the counter notice), so that's why I'm dismissive of the belief that valve wouldn't do that.
That's the entire section starting on page 12 titled "Defendants’ Issuance of a DMCA Notice is Not an Injunction"
And then further in part "b) Irreparable Harm " page 18.

Then the judge made a completely separate point about how doing this injunction denial didn't mean the two guys would automatically jump to a DMCA.

Both of these points from the judge were immediately proven wrong... again, which is why I'm a bit dismissive.

The second point maybe I was reading too much between the lines, but things like this is what brought it to my thoughts:

4. The Anticipated DMCA Notice
Stardock anticipates that Reiche and Ford will send DMCA notices to GOG
[...]
Stardock anticipates that
Reiche and Ford will send DMCA notices to GOG and Valve regarding Origins, resulting
in its removal from those distribution platforms. Consequently, Stardock filed the instant
motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin Reiche and Ford from sending further DMCA
notices directed to material that is the subject of the present ligation and, in particular,
Origins. Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and
being fully informed, the Court hereby DENIES the motion, for the reasons stated below.
[...]
Stardock asserts that, if a DMCA notice is issued, Origins “will have been
promoted and released,” but (seemingly operating under the assumption that GOG and
Valve will remove the game from their platforms) it will no longer be available for
purchase or play on the distributors’ platforms.
[...]
Contrary
to Plaintiff’s assertion, see Mot. at 13, Defendants cannot “unilaterally” block Origins or
any other content from distribution by issuing a DMCA notice.
[...]
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim that third party service providers such as GOG and
Valve act instinctively to remove material claimed to be infringing, regardless of the merits
of the claim, is overstated and without basis

So to sum up, maybe that 2nd point there's not enough to be clear, so we can dismiss that 2nd point. But that first point I feel is still pretty strong

And I agree with much of your take you summarized in how things fell out, but I still think stardock will come ahead and that it will hinge on if the royalty agreement is still in place.

I appreciate that you went to the source document to pull quotes, however you believe you know more than the judge, and therefore dismiss her expert opinion on a whim. That's very convenient in arguments like this! Also, it's not great to put words in her mouth ("they can't be that much of a jerk") and offer no quotes to support that. I didn't read anything like that in the source.

Again, Stardock filed an injunction to stop Paul & Ford from using DMCA as it was intended. The judge explained that an injunction can't be used that way under current law, and therefore denied it.

Dev wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 08:52:
In other words, he didn't believe they'd just remove it. Which is weird, because that's exactly how DMCA works. So this judge doesn't appear to know much about how DMCA works in reality.

Nowhere does the judge say she doesn't believe a DMCA notice will be issued. She says that the possibility of a DMCA does not meet the threshold for an injunction, and that an injunction at this point would contradict status quo:

Defendants (Paule & Ford) argue that the requested injunction would upset the status quo, not preserve it. Tellingly, Plaintiff (Stardock) does not respond to this argument. This is fatal to its motion for preliminary injunction.

And as for the irreparable harm stuff, the judge makes it quite clear by quoting precedence:

“If the harm complained of is self-inflicted, it does not qualify as irreparable.” Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey, 68 F.3d 828, 839 (3d Cir. 1995)

Stardock released their game fully aware of the pending litigation. They thought they could get away with it, and failed.

[T]he Court is disinclined to extricate Plaintiff from a peril of its own making.

The Stardock link that describes their side of the issue is of course biased. If anyone would like to read a little of Paul & Ford's side, check out their page: https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/

It's impossible to know for sure what motivates people, but this is my current take on the situation:

• Bard Wardell, a huge fan of Star Control 2, bought what he believed was the complete Star Control universe from Atari.
• When Brad reached out to Paul & Ford to collaborate, he discovered (and acknowledged) he only bought the trademark along with the chum from the shitty Star Control 3 game, and couldn't use any of the characters from Star Control 2.
• In an effort to make the game he envisioned, Brad repeatedly asked Paul & Ford to collaborate, and they repeatedly refused. (They harbored intentions to make their own successor.)
• Being denied, Brad tried to recover from his mistake by offering Paul & Ford the opportunity to buy the trademark and Star Control 3 chum for the same price he paid. Paul & Ford refused to buy the shit sandwich as it isn't necessary to make their own Star Control 2 successor.
• Brad, pissed off and disappointed, changed his tune and said he could use the characters from Star Control 2 and Paul & Ford couldn't stop him.
• Brad begins waging a legal and PR battle with Paul & Ford.

To summarize, a few relatively small creators wanted to continue creating without the interference of Brad Wardell. Brad couldn't take rejection, and escalated the issue. You may disagree with the tactics Paul & Ford use, but they are fighting someone who doesn't pull punches. Ultimately we'll have to wait to see what the courts decide, but if the December 27 2018 ruling is any indication, Stardock is talking a big game without any real merit.

I did a podcast on this issue that I just released.

It doesn't go too far into weeds on the nature of the dispute (some long videos are linked in the description that go into exhaustive detail about this) but it's more of an appeal to both sides to figure this out, as a hardcore Star Control fan and someone who actually did very much like Origins. I kind of take both Brad Wardell and Paul & Fred to task for what I see as their respective missteps in this.

Yeah, so... there is this (taken from the previous BN post last year):

Skylanders toy company

I thought Stardock bought this IP and owns it? So how is it hes two guys are able to try and lay claim to this game?

And does anyone like or play this game? I tried it out and did not care for it at all.

Dev wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 08:52:

VaranDragon wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 06:23:

Dev wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 02:08:
IANAL

Wut?

A common acronym meaning I Am Not A Lawyer

Not to be confused with the completely different phrase, I<3ANAL.

EDIT: comment removed because I probably don't know what I'm talking about

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 2019, 15:04.

It's kind of fun how evenly this place is split into "Side A is being huge assholes here" and "Side B is being huge assholes here!"

Maybe both are being somewhat understandable assholes?

RedEye9 wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 19:32:

Parallax Abstraction wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 17:57:
In the end, the courts will determine who is right. At least I have my copy of Origins in the mean time.

gog ain't pulled it yet
https://www.gog.com/game/star_control_origins

It's most deffo pulled now

Mondosapien wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 22:43:
Four days before this post (December 27th 2018), Stardock was denied a preliminary injunction that would have prevented Paul & Ford from issuing the DMCA.

http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/f/fa/102_Order.pdf

I will note that the judge you liked, said as an argument that

As a threshold
matter, the Court finds Plaintiff’s evidence in support of its claim of irreparable injury
wanting. Plaintiff’s claim depends on the unsupported assumption that GOG and Valve
will remove Origins upon receipt of a DMCA notice of infringement.

And

Furthermore, Plaintiff’s claim that third party service providers such as GOG and
Valve act instinctively to remove material claimed to be infringing, regardless of the merits
of the claim, is overstated and without basis

In other words, he didn't believe they'd just remove it. Which is weird, because that's exactly how DMCA works. So this judge doesn't appear to know much about how DMCA works in reality. Even though he talks about the safe harbor!

And he says something along the lines of "surely just because I don't stop them from doing a DMCA, doesn't mean they will immediately go file one, they can't be that much of a jerk." Uh yes they can and did. Within days.

Stardock did fail here, in not showing the cases where valve removed things from this type stuff in the past. ALSO, in not showing that valve is just generally lazy anyway and wants to take the easy way out... Though I don't know how one would prove that!

The judge also argues that even if stardock suffered harm, no big deal, they could get it back as damages... AHHAAHAHAHAH. I sincerely doubt that the two guys have millions of bucks in assets ready to be paid out as damages.

The judge appears to be naive.

Also apparently neither side's lawyers bothered to read the rules for that jurisdiction. They both had like 70 pages of filings thrown out because they submitted them separately without asking and far over the tiny 5 page limits.

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 2019, 09:06.

VaranDragon wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 06:23:

Dev wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 02:08:
IANAL

Wut?

A common acronym meaning I Am Not A Lawyer

ForgedReality wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 04:03:

Dev wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 19:28:

RaZ0r! wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 18:53:
I never played the first one, but apparently I missed the charm of it as the new one is really boring to me. Seems like a really niche game to make a big fuss over, but again I'm not looking at it with nostalgia.

So go play it then! They released the source code, and the original composers came back to remake all the music. A fantastic version of SC2. And it still plays well.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
Ur quan masters

...That's not the first one.

There's not much of a game to the first one. But if you want it, I'm sure it's out there. I believe it's been given away for free sometimes.
As I recall it's mostly just an endless supermelee game, one battle after another until you "win"
You basically have star control 1 inside star control 2 with the supermelee mode.

Edit for screenshots and a review:
https://www.mobygames.com/game/star-control/screenshots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0gD75YjDis

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 2019, 09:03.

Just Ford and Reiche being complete assholes. Anyone who contributed to their GoFundMe account is also an asshole.

Dev wrote on Jan 2, 2019, 02:08:
IANAL

Wut?

So Star Control is a trademark? Then just call it something else like Star Wars. Since it is "Origins" and a re-start of the franchise, you might call it Star Wars: Episode 1. Problem solved!

Dev wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 19:28:

RaZ0r! wrote on Jan 1, 2019, 18:53:
I never played the first one, but apparently I missed the charm of it as the new one is really boring to me. Seems like a really niche game to make a big fuss over, but again I'm not looking at it with nostalgia.

So go play it then! They released the source code, and the original composers came back to remake all the music. A fantastic version of SC2. And it still plays well.

http://sc2.sourceforge.net/
Ur quan masters

...That's not the first one.

I really wish we had Ghosts instead of this cartoon abomination. Thanks, lawyers.

Text for your Link
If anyone hasn't seen this stardock posted Q&A yet (I hadn't) it's a must read.

It has the actual emails exchanged between the two guys and Brad.
In addition the cost they paid for the rights (something between $300k and $400k).
There's a lot of good info, especially between the lines.
Brad even offered in 2013 to sell all the rights to them at his cost if they were going to make a game, out of respect for them as a game designer. They didn't bother to say anything until 4 years later in development, after stardock had sunk millions in development.

Note: I think the REAL reason the original IP wasn't used (although respect was mentioned), was the agreement stardock purchased includes that a 10% royalty must be paid to the two guys if they did use the original aliens IP. He was trying to negotiate a smaller royalty for cameo or DLC.

Also looks like the 2 guys are claiming there were some royalty payments skipped by Accolade, which invalidated the agreements. This may be the piece upon which the whole case hinges. However if they were cashing royalty checks (even if there were pauses), that action may imply legally it's active.

I think the two guys got all butthurt at the proposal Brad was sending them as an outline of a formal agreement to share. But that's exactly that kinda thing looks like. And I bet parts were negotiable. The alternative is to do what many companies do and just shut down fan projects. Instead, the two guys used a nuclear option to stop the sales of star control

Only the lawyers are going to win in this fight. The IP apparently wasn't valuable enough to be a big hit, so this isn't hundreds of millions at stake. It's a few million, that apparently doesn't even pay off the cost of development. And whoever "wins" is probably going to totally shut down the other side. This move by the two guys may have just insured they can NEVER do a true sequel. Or if it goes the other way, that Origins doesn't get any more patches or development or content for the season pass. Rather than both coexisting and me getting to buy multiple star control games after years of none. It's a sad squabble over scraps that tarnishes the memories of a wonderful game.

IANAL

This comment was edited on Jan 2, 2019, 02:24.