Star Control: Origins - Star Control reboot from Stardock

[Unkillable Cat]

Copyright appears out of nowhere automatically, as soon as you do creative work, and it expires X years after the death of the creator (Disney keeps bribing congress to enlarge X, in order to extend the Mickey Mouse copyright, because Walt Disney has been dead for so long).

Just to remind people, Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse's first apperance) expires in 2024. Expect Disney's next bribing campaign to take place before that time.

 

[Dexter]

Pretty good short summary aside from a few minor quibbles (I don't think Paul and Fred actually have a game that they're actively developing or want to sell any time soon though and I think they're just using "Ghosts of the Precursors", which was so conveniently announced just as Stardock was getting ready for release for lawfare purposes, so aside from legal costs and potential damages they don't really have skin in the game):

 

[Steamboat Willie]

Just to remind people, Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie (Mickey Mouse's first apperance) expires in 2024. Expect Disney's next bribing campaign to take place before that time.

I'll be damned if I let myself get raped by the Public Domain.

 

[Mustawd]

Pretty good short summary aside from a few minor quibbles (I don't think Paul and Fred actually have a game that they're actively developing or want to sell any time soon though and I think they're just using "Ghosts of the Precursors", which was so conveniently announced just as Stardock was getting ready for release for lawfare purposes, so aside from legal costs and potential damages they don't really have skin in the game):

Not sure I understand what Ghosts of the Precursors has to do with anything.

 

[Zombra]

Pretty good short summary aside from a few minor quibbles (I don't think Paul and Fred actually have a game that they're actively developing or want to sell any time soon though and I think they're just using "Ghosts of the Precursors", which was so conveniently announced just as Stardock was getting ready for release for lawfare purposes, so aside from legal costs and potential damages they don't really have skin in the game):

Not sure I understand what Ghosts of the Precursors has to do with anything.

I don't understand the ramifications either but it is certainly a piece on the board. I guess R&F are seeking to establish that they are "doing something" within the SC2 space so to speak. Or maybe Stardock's game forcibly reminded them "Oh yeah, our greatest masterpiece that we're incredibly famous for might be worth revisiting." To suppose that there is no relationship between the Origins development timeline and the announcement of Precursors stretches credibility for me.

 

[Mustawd]

I don't understand the ramifications either but it is certainly a piece on the board. I guess R&F are seeking to establish that they are "doing something" within the SC2 space so to speak.

Why? They don’t own the trademark. Which again, is something that needs to show use to renew. AFAIK they are claiming they own the copyright. Which does not need to show use as it would still be in place.

I’m still confused on why this is relevant. It sounds like people on youtube and others posting youtube videos are more confused though.

 

[Zombra]

I don't understand the ramifications either but it is certainly a piece on the board. I guess R&F are seeking to establish that they are "doing something" within the SC2 space so to speak.

Why? They don’t own the trademark. I’m still confused. It sounds like people on youtube and others posting youtube videos are more confused though.

It doesn't make sense to me either. Certainly no sense in terms of exercising an existing trademark they don't own. Maybe they think it will look good in court, see, we're making the true sequel so Stardock is damaging our god-given right to continue our legacy, something like this.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Btw. this was found not to be Copyright infrigement in a famous case from the 90s (and they literally copied UI, movesets/combos, characters and owned no IP):

Ha, that's funny.

What it comes down to is there is no such thing as "IP," that is just a general colloquialism used to refer to patents, copyrights, and trademarks attached to specific works. Stardock owns some of the SC IP and P&F own the rest, each are pulling on their end to try to take the other's. It may very well shake out that Stardock can't use SC2 assets, the UQM project stays put, but they can make a competing direct SC2 sequel. Sort of how like Peter Schilling wrote a sequel to Bowie's Space Oddity song.

Game mechanics, themes, ideas, and story structures are not copyrightable. You may be able to patent specific things, but generally games that completely copy gameplay from one another have never been found to be infringing.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

I'll be damned if I let myself get raped by the Public Domain.

Hello, piece of cheese.

 

[Dexter]

Not sure I understand what Ghosts of the Precursors has to do with anything.

Why? They don’t own the trademark. Which again, is something that needs to show use to renew. AFAIK they are claiming they own the copyright. Which does not need to show use as it would still be in place.

I’m still confused on why this is relevant. It sounds like people on youtube and others posting youtube videos are more confused though.

NotSureIfSerious.jpg, this is about as stupid as you claiming that Stardock "admitted in court their use of SCI and II Copyright" even though they claimed the exact opposite.

This whole thing started in 2013 with Wardell/Stardock acquiring the "Star Control IP" (and various other things in question like the Star Control 3 Copyright, potentially marketing materials, unreleased SC4 assets, additional Trademarks, distribution rights etc. that are in dispute) from ATARI. He asked P&F if he can license their Copyright for SC I+II, they said no and everything seemed to be going along fine till Late 2017, 4 years into Star Control: Origins development, when P&F suddenly announced that they're going to be making the TRUE Star Control sequel (that was also widely reported as the DIRECT sequel to Star Control 2 etc.) even though Stardock owns the IP and had just released a Beta and was getting ready for release and winding up the PR machine. See here for initial confusion and note that aside from said "Announcement" there doesn't seem to be any actual artwork, videos, screenshots or any other indication or proof that this product actually exists in any other context than for legal purposes, is even in development or will ever actually exist, while Stardock have an actual game they want to sell. Even though they initially appeared amicable, from there the hostilities and arguments about who owns what increased, parties started officially applying for Copyrights and Trademarks, the DMCA's started, they were sued for Trademark infringement, they counter-sued for Copyright infringement and here we are.

 

[Mustawd]

Not sure I understand what Ghosts of the Precursors has to do with anything.

Why? They don’t own the trademark. Which again, is something that needs to show use to renew. AFAIK they are claiming they own the copyright. Which does not need to show use as it would still be in place.

I’m still confused on why this is relevant. It sounds like people on youtube and others posting youtube videos are more confused though.

NotSureIfSerious.jpg, this is about as stupid as you claiming that Stardock "admitted in court their use of SCI and II Copyright" even though they claimed the exact opposite.

This whole thing started in 2013 with Wardell/Stardock acquiring the "Star Control IP" (and various other things in question like the Star Control 3 Copyright, potentially marketing materials, unreleased SC4 assets, additional Trademarks, distribution rights etc. that are in dispute) from ATARI. He asked P&F if he can license their Copyright for SC I+II, they said no and everything seemed to be going along fine till Late 2017, 4 years into Star Control: Origins development, when P&F suddenly announced that they're going to be making the TRUE Star Control sequel (that was also widely reported as the DIRECT sequel to Star Control 2 etc.) even though Stardock owns the IP and had just released a Beta and was getting ready for release and winding up the PR machine. See here for initial confusion and note that aside from said "Announcement" there doesn't seem to be any actual artwork, videos, screenshots or any other indication or proof that this product actually exists in any other context than for legal purposes, is even in development or will ever actually exist, while Stardock have an actual game they want to sell. Even though they initially appeared amicable, from there the hostilities and arguments about who owns what increased, parties started officially applying for Copyrights and Trademarks, the DMCA's started, they were sued for Trademark infringement, they counter-sued for Copyright infringement and here we are.

Hey retard:

1. P&F never owned the SC trademark. Even for SCI and II.

Accolade was granted an exclusive license to publish the games in exchange for the payment of an advance and royalties. Id., Ex. 1 § 3.12 Under the License Agreement, Reiche retained ownership of the copyright and all other proprietary rights in the work, while Accolade owned the title and any trademarks adopted and used in the marketing of the work. Id. §§ 11.4, 11.5.

2. SC I and II have already been registered for copyrights.

Star Control I was printed with “© 1990 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford,” and Star Control II was printed with “© 1992 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford.” Id. ¶ 16. Later, in December 2017 and April 2018, Reiche and Ford obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA 2-071-496 and No. PA-2-107-340, respectively, for the computer program code and audiovisual content of Star Control II. Id. ¶ 19.

3. The DMCA has to do with copyright infringement. It does not deal with trademarks because those were owned by Accolade. SC III’s trademark is actually owned by Stardock as part of the asset acquisition.

On August 17 and 21, 2018, Reiche and Ford sent Valve (d/b/a Steam) and GOG notices of copyright infringement under the DMCA regarding Fleet Battles and the Chenjesu and Arilou Content Packs. Wardell Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11 & Exs. A, C. As a result, Valve and GOG removed the promotional content from their respective platforms

and

According to the “List of Intellectual Property” attached to the purchase agreement, that included the Star Control trademark and the Star Control III copyright. Weikert Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. A at ¶ 27 & Ex. D.

So what does a trademark have to do with anything? What does showing prior use have to do with anything?

As far as I can see from official docs (and not some random blog posts or tweets): NOTHING

Honestly Dexter, it’s beyond me how you can be this dense. I can only conclude you have not read the court docs nor have any intention of doing so. Trust me, you’d sound a lot less stupider if you did.

 

[Dexter]

Can you read and comprehend words? Maybe you should start there. Try going through what you said, through what I actually said and through what some of your quotes actually state before going Full Retard again. I have no interest in further Walls of Text trying to explain things that apparently confound you before we've established that you can actually read.

 

[Elestan]

This is exactly what was done in September 2007 when Atari was about to lose its trademark for Star Control: They released a basic Spacewar!-clone on their Atari Play website four days before their trademark would expire and called it Star Control.

Incidentally, under the Token Use rule, that game almost certainly did not qualify as a valid use in commerce for maintaining the trademark. This is one of the reasons that P&F are giving for the trademark's renewal to be considered invalid.

 

[Mustawd]

Can you read and comperehend words? Maybe you should start there. Try going through what you said, through what I actually said and through what some of your quotes actually say before going Full Retard again.

You seriously can’t be this dumb. But maybe you are so let me spoon feed you:

1.) P&F never owned the trademark
2.) They don’t own the trademark

With me so far? Ok cool.

3.) NO SHOWING PRIOR USE MATTERS IN THIS CONTEXT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THEY WERE TRYING TO SHOW THEY HAD USED IT TO REAPPLY FOR A TRADEMARK.

WHICH THEY DON’T HAVE.


Fucking moron.

 

[Elestan]

This whole thing started in 2013 with Wardell/Stardock acquiring the "Star Control IP"...

Here's another take on this chronology, with references linked.

 

[Rahdulan]

 

[Dexter]

I'll just try this one more time under the assumption that you can potentially read and comprehend things.

1. P&F never owned the SC trademark. Even for SCI and II.

1.) P&F never owned the trademark
2.) They don’t own the trademark

3.) NO SHOWING PRIOR USE MATTERS IN THIS CONTEXT BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN THEY WERE TRYING TO SHOW THEY HAD USED IT TO REAPPLY FOR A TRADEMARK.

You're sperging out about something I have never claimed. Show me claiming that P&F ever owned the Star Control Trademark. Beyond that I actually agreed with your one point about Trademarks having to be used to be protected, which is also why Stardock is so vigorously defending their purchase and ownership of the "Star Control" (and associated) Trademarks.

Even though they initially appeared amicable, from there the hostilities and arguments about who owns what increased, parties started officially applying for Copyrights and Trademarks, the DMCA's started, they were sued for Trademark infringement, they counter-sued for Copyright infringement and here we are.

2. SC I and II have already been registered for copyrights.

Star Control I was printed with “© 1990 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford,” and Star Control II was printed with “© 1992 Paul Reiche III & Fred Ford.” Id. ¶ 16. Later, in December 2017 and April 2018, Reiche and Ford obtained U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA 2-071-496 and No. PA-2-107-340, respectively, for the computer program code and audiovisual content of Star Control II. Id. ¶ 19.

3. The DMCA has to do with copyright infringement. It does not deal with trademarks because those were owned by Accolade. SC III’s trademark is actually owned by Stardock as part of the asset acquisition.

So what does a trademark have to do with anything? What does showing prior use have to do with anything?

As far as I can see from official docs (and not some random blog posts or tweets): NOTHING

You're confusing Trademarks and Copyrights in regards to SC III here. You're confused about this being both a Trademark infringement (from Stardock to P&F) and a Copyright infringement (from P&F to Stardock) lawsuit/legal battle, which is very much also tied to "Ghosts of the Precursors", which apparently also confounds/confuses you: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/

 

[Cael]

This whole thing started in 2013 with Wardell/Stardock acquiring the "Star Control IP"...

Here's another take on this chronology, with references linked.

That timeline irrevocably eviscerates stardick in no uncertain terms. There is no way that stardick can win the lawsuit with that timeline in place.

 

[Mustawd]

I think they're just using "Ghosts of the Precursors", which was so conveniently announced just as Stardock was getting ready for release for lawfare purposes, so aside from legal costs and potential damages they don't really have skin in the game):

You're sperging out about something I have never claimed. Show me claiming that P&F ever owned the Star Control Trademark

The entire reason we started discussing this is that I basically asked why the first quote matters? As your implication would imply they are trying to show prior use regarding a trademark.

What possible reason could they have for “lawfare” purposes?

Stardock sued P&F for Trademark infringement. Ok so what? It has nothing to do with what we’ve been discussing at all. P&F will need to show they did not infringe on the trademark. Announcing a game has nothing to do with this.

What it COULD possible help with is
if the Trademarks that Stardock owns is invalidated (as P&F is requesting IIRC), then it could easily file for the SC trademark if it’s now available.

But that’s a stretch because you can file
an intent to use application with only a business plan.

Who knows why P&F announced their new game when they did. Maybe it was a warning to Stardock. Maybe they saw the attention Origins was getting and they decided now was a good time in the market to create a new SC game.

Regardless, I don’t see how it could be used for “lawfare” purposes.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

Normally I hate watching how original developers get screwed out of controlling their cretations because of some shitty deals they signed when they were in their early 20s. In this case though, P&F can go fuck themselves.

They do nothing with the IP for 25 years, they refuse to work with Stardock when invited to join the project, then suddenly just when the game is about to hit the shelves they develop the urge to work on their own version and try to block Origins with what seems like a fradulent wololo DMCA based on nothing except bunch of woo-woo.

Meanwhile Origins maybe wasn't a masterpiece but by all account it was a solid attempt and they've had plenty of post-launch support plant with expansions and DLCs, eventually it could've been something nice.

 

[Cael]

Meanwhile Origins maybe wasn't a masterpiece but by all account it was a solid attempt and they've had plenty of post-launch support plant with expansions and DLCs, eventually it could've been something nice.

"You weren't doing anything with it anyway" is not a good enough reason for theft and daylight robbery.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

"You weren't doing anything with it anyway" is not a good enough reason for theft and daylight robbery.

If one of the mods is up for some lols maybe they could grant me Cael's account since he clearly isn't doing anything with it anyway.

 

[Cael]

"You weren't doing anything with it anyway" is not a good enough reason for theft and daylight robbery.

If one of the mods is up for some lols maybe they could grant me Cael's account since he clearly isn't doing anything with it anyway.

What is funny is that one of those guys you mocked actually thought what you said was funny. Personally, I think Nick's account is a lost cause from the moment he verballed and deliberately went out to start a feud with MCA. Maybe some new guy can have his account.

 

[IHaveHugeNick]

 

[Humanity has risen!]

Meanwhile Origins maybe wasn't a masterpiece but by all account it was a solid attempt and they've had plenty of post-launch support plant with expansions and DLCs, eventually it could've been something nice.

"You weren't doing anything with it anyway" is not a good enough reason for theft and daylight robbery.

They stole their hyperspace! How could they?