117 replies to this topic

[Menetius]

James The Fox Dixon, on 11 October 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

The shape is similar, but the elements that make up the design are different. Copyright law only needs to have a 75% difference to pass the muster and all of the elements inside of the basic shape take it beyond the 75% requirement. Every shade line, detail, etc... count as a percentage of the overall design. For the record, the Marauder design is substantially different from the original Glaug design.

HG doesn't have a claim to the entire Macross franchise and they attempted it until Big West smacked them with the lawsuit hammer that forced HG to abandon their claim to all things Macross. Robotech isn't even worthy of being in the same sentence as Macross. There is nothing stopping PGI or Catalyst from going to Studio Nue/Big West and license Veritech fighters like the VF-11 or the VF-19 to replace the Wasp, Stinger, and Phoenix Hawk. Those designs all came from Macross 7.

The Glaug is both a concept and an artwork, however, and is therefore considered (at least in part) intangible intellectual property. The laws regarding intangible IP are much more strict than standard copyright law, are they not?

And if Topps can license so freely from Studio Nue, then why don't they do so instead of reimagining the LAM's in their reseen variants?

I never said that HG owned the Macross franchise. I said that Studio Nue did.

On a slightly unrelated topic, why shouldn't I mention Robotech and Macross in the same breath? Aren't they part of the same universe?

[James The Fox Dixon]

Menetius, on 11 October 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

The Glaug is both a concept and an artwork, however, and is therefore considered (at least in part) intangible intellectual property. The laws regarding intangible IP are much more strict than standard copyright law, are they not?

And if Topps can license so freely from Studio Nue, then why don't they do so instead of reimagining the LAM's in their reseen variants?

I never said that HG owned the Macross franchise. I said that Studio Nue did.

On a slightly unrelated topic, why shouldn't I mention Robotech and Macross in the same breath? Aren't they part of the same universe?

Concepts and intangible IP cannot be copyright, trademarked, and/or patented.

I don't believe that Topps had anything to do with the Reseen.

Robotech is the bastardization of three separate anime series SDF Macross, SDF Southern Cross, and Genesis MOSPEDA. Macross doesn't have Invid or Robotech masters, plus protoculture is different. They are not the same universe, especially when HG rewrote a lot of the scenes and followed their own storyline. It's a lot like saying the DC universe is the same as the Fawcette and Marvel universe since all three universes have Captain Marvel.

[Menetius]

James The Fox Dixon, on 12 October 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:

Concepts and intangible IP cannot be copyright, trademarked, and/or patented.

I don't believe that Topps had anything to do with the Reseen.

Robotech is the bastardization of three separate anime series SDF Macross, SDF Southern Cross, and Genesis MOSPEDA. Macross doesn't have Invid or Robotech masters, plus protoculture is different. They are not the same universe, especially when HG rewrote a lot of the scenes and followed their own storyline. It's a lot like saying the DC universe is the same as the Fawcette and Marvel universe since all three universes have Captain Marvel.

"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs."

"Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce."

My point regarding Topps is that they can solve the problem regarding unseen design relatively easily by communicating with Studio Nue. Are they just not interested in doing so?

I know very little about Robotech or Macross, so forgive my ignorance. Do Robotech and Macross both possess Veritech fighters? Is there a technological, if not cultural, parallel?

Edited by Menetius, 12 October 2013 - 08:51 PM.

[Leded]

S0lid, on 11 October 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

How about that Redesign ?



Found them a while ago on http://www.deviantar...letech+marauder

i do kinda like this one if only for the sake that it "looks" like a 75ton mech. while i liked the old design it really did look too spindly and squawny to weigh 75tons when compared to other mechs in the same weight class. meh it may never happen, but doesn't mean we can't talk about it

[James The Fox Dixon]

Menetius, on 12 October 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs."

"Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind: inventions, literary and artistic works, and symbols, names, images, and designs used in commerce."

My point regarding Topps is that they can solve the problem regarding unseen design relatively easily by communicating with Studio Nue. Are they just not interested in doing so?

I know very little about Robotech or Macross, so forgive my ignorance. Do Robotech and Macross both possess Veritech fighters? Is there a technological, if not cultural, parallel?

First up there was your claim that concepts can be copyrighted, trademarked, or patented.

Quote

Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

Link

As far as intangible property, this refers to the reproduction of the works related to copyrights, trademarks, and patents such as printing a book. Intangible property rights are separate from the physical copy of the book etc... as the book is physical property.

Quote

Generally, ownership of intangible property gives the owner a set of legally enforceable rights over reproduction of personal property containing certain content. For example, a copyright owner can control the reproduction of the work forming the copyright. However, the intangible property forms a set of rights separate from the tangible property that carries the rights. For example, the owner of a copyright can control the printing of books containing the content, but the book itself is personal property which can be bought and sold without concern over the rights of the copyright holder.

Link

From what I can tell Topps has no interest in Battletech at all and lets Catalyst do what they want with the BT license. However, you are correct in that Topps could license new art from Studio Nue.

In Macross, they are called Variable Fighters. Only in Robotech are they called Veritechs. The technologies of the two universes operate differently. Mechs in Macross do not use Protoculture since Protoculture is the race of beings that created the Zentradi. The SDF-1 is a warship used by the enemies of the Zentradi. I suggest reading this thread.

[Menetius]

James The Fox Dixon, on 13 October 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

[Big Snip on Copyright documentation, for the sake of post length. See previous post for full content.]
From what I can tell Topps has no interest in Battletech at all and lets Catalyst do what they want with the BT license. However, you are correct in that Topps could license new art from Studio Nue.

In Macross, they are called Variable Fighters. Only in Robotech are they called Veritechs. The technologies of the two universes operate differently. Mechs in Macross do not use Protoculture since Protoculture is the race of beings that created the Zentradi. The SDF-1 is a warship used by the enemies of the Zentradi. I suggest reading this thread.

I was exchanging the phrases 'intangible assets' and 'concepts' synonymously. Again, bad syntax on my part. Was FASA aware of this 75% rule you mentioned earlier in the thread? Why didn't they make HG aware that they had no legal case, if such is true?

By the way, FASA had come up with a multitude of other designs for other battlemechs; what exactly inspired them to so heavily base some mech designs on Macross designs? Was it laziness on TCI's part?

I did a little digging, and apparently, Catalyst did attempt to reacquire the old artwork for all of the unseen, and released it in the book Battletech: 25 years of Art and Fiction. The book was pulled from production in 2009 due to licensing disputes with Harmony Gold... again.

I skimmed through to better understand the relationship between Robotech and Macross/Mospeda, but otherwise the universe never interested me that much. Then again, neither did BT's LAM's. For some reason, LAM's, Variable fighters, and Veritech fighters break my suspension of disbelief. I have no clue why they do and not stompy-bot Battlemechs.

Edited by Menetius, 13 October 2013 - 09:22 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Menetius, on 13 October 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I was exchanging the phrases 'intangible assets' and 'concepts' synonymously. Again, bad syntax on my part. Was FASA aware of this 75% rule you mentioned earlier in the thread? Why didn't they make HG aware that they had no legal case, if such is true?

I'm pretty sure that FASA's lawyers knew of the 75% rule, but at the time of the case there was a major question over who owned what in Japan. That wouldn't be settled for another 9-13 years in Japan. At the time of the HG v. Fasa case, HG had a pretty solid contract. However, if the same case was tried now, HG would lose as many of their claims would be thrown out due to the Japanese court rulings stating that Studio Nue/Big West owned the designs to the mecha and characters from SDF Macross and SDF Southern Cross not Tatsunoko.

Menetius, on 13 October 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

By the way, FASA had come up with a multitude of other designs for other battlemechs; what exactly inspired them to so heavily base some mech designs on Macross designs? Was it laziness on TCI's part?

Long after the release of BattleDroids/BattleTech did they come up with new designs. The deciding factor for using the original 16 mechs was because TCI had the model kits ready to be sold. If you're doing a miniature wargame you need to have the kits necessary to play. The first three editions of the Battletech Boxed Sets used the TCI model kits exclusively. It is a lot cheaper and faster to use something already in production then it is to create new designs and kits from scratch. Battletech didn't get new mech kits until 1986 and that was from Ral Partha, so you're looking at 2 years from the release of the first two editions of the BattleTech boxed sets. That is a long time between the boxed sets and the kits.

Menetius, on 13 October 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I did a little digging, and apparently, Catalyst did attempt to reacquire the old artwork for all of the unseen, and released it in the book Battletech: 25 years of Art and Fiction. The book was pulled from production in 2009 due to licensing disputes with Harmony Gold... again.

They did put out the book, but I don't think they understood or knew about the Japanese court cases. We also don't know about the agreement FASA and HG entered into back in 1993 or whether it's binding on Catalyst or not.

Menetius, on 13 October 2013 - 09:21 PM, said:

I skimmed through to better understand the relationship between Robotech and Macross/Mospeda, but otherwise the universe never interested me that much. Then again, neither did BT's LAM's. For some reason, LAM's, Variable fighters, and Veritech fighters break my suspension of disbelief. I have no clue why they do and not stompy-bot Battlemechs.

Well, just understand that Land-Air Mechs have been a part of BattleTech from day 1. You may not like them, but there are plenty of people that do. It was the main reason why these people started playing to begin with.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 October 2013 - 07:54 AM.

[CyclonerM]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Well, just understand that Land-Air Mechs have been a part of BattleTech from day 1. You may not like them, but there are plenty of people that do. It was the main reason why these people started playing to begin with.

Too bad they are not very popular even in the lore..

[James The Fox Dixon]

CyclonerM, on 14 October 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

Too bad they are not very popular even in the lore..

Hmm I wonder what Lore you've been reading since they were very popular according the Lore I've read. This is from Sarna.

Quote

The origins of the Land-Air 'Mech stem from First Lord Michael Cameron's selection of Admiral David Peterson as overall commander of the SLDF. The naval officer instigated a number of sweeping changes to break interservice rivialires and push the Terran Hegemony's technological advantage, commissioning several manufacturers to develop "a series of 'Mechs that could fly as well as function a light ground 'Mech". Allied Aerospace initially won the bid with a flawed bimodal conversion of the venerable Shadow Hawk, before LexaTech Industries delivered the fully functional trimodal LAM based on the Stinger a decade later. With LexaTech's design becoming the LAM standard, its competitors (Harvard Company, Inc. and Allied AeroSpace) developed similar trimodal designs. Despite their names, these Mark I only took small design queues from their progenitor designs, making them easier to single out and target, until a painstaking redesign was undertaken to produce the Mark II version from 2701 on.


The Land-Air 'Mech is a "jack of all trades and master of none", and became relegated to small highly-specific niches. The versatility of the LAM found a place in all SLDF divisions, most notably the League's Striker regiments, where they were typically used as special forces to strike behind enemy lines or disrupt supply lines. The Free Worlds League would possess the second largest number of LAMs by 2750^[1] and created full battalions for fast-strike and rapid-response uses. The other Great Houses used LAMs as scouts, utilizing their mobility to enter and leave difficult access locations before being spotted.
Thanks to the limitations and extra weight required for their conversion equipment, LAMs installed less equipment than a simple BattleMech or AeroSpace Fighter of equal weight. Further LAMs were left out of the the Star League's increasing march of technology as the required conversion systems prevented them for utilizing the more advanced structural components. The inability to use extra-light engines or endo-steel structures magnified the equipment gap.

Produced in limited numbers by only a handful of factories, the majority of LAM manufacturers were among those factories lost to the maelstrom of the early Succession Wars. Some of the most pyrrhic objective raids in the Succession War era saw whole regiments of conventional BattleMechs and aerospace fighters heavily damaged or lost to capture a few LAMs or LAM spare part stores. By the Third Succession War, the high cost and rarity of LAMs had made military commanders increasingly wary of committing these prized relics to battle and most had turned to replacing them with more plentiful conventional counterparts in their TOEs.

With every SLDF regiment fielding at least a company of Land Air 'Mechs, there were at least 180,000 LAMs in service at the time of the Ameris Civil War.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 October 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Blue Footed Booby]

James The Fox Dixon, on 11 October 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Funny, but my statements, that you quoted, are very factual and can be backed up.

And I've got an uncle at Nintendo who says the next Mario will be an M rated FPS.

Edit: I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. My point is that you can link all the articles you want, if there are articles from equally reputable sources with mutually exclusive explanations for what happened and what it means legally, that's not exactly "facts" that have been "backed up." It's evidence for a narrative, but you don't get to pump the victory fist and moonwalk out of the room declaring yourself the victor. At the very least you need to also address the conflicting claims. Ideally, this would include not just pointing out the flaws in logic, but also find direct sources for the specific details. That is, don't just post a link to some article written but some reporter/nerd on the internet asserting that this company had these rights but not those rights; find if not the actual court docs then an article citing them.

I realize this is a high bar. That's kinda my point: this sort of situation is exactly why saying "I'm right, these other guys are wrong" on the internet is a not so hot idea.

Edited by Blue Footed Booby, 14 October 2013 - 11:52 AM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Blue Footed Booby, on 14 October 2013 - 11:43 AM, said:

And I've got an uncle at Nintendo who says the next Mario will be an M rated FPS.

Edit: I'm not saying you're wrong, necessarily. My point is that you can link all the articles you want, if there are articles from equally reputable sources with mutually exclusive explanations for what happened and what it means legally, that's not exactly "facts" that have been "backed up." It's evidence for a narrative, but you don't get to pump the victory fist and moonwalk out of the room declaring yourself the victor. At the very least you need to also address the conflicting claims. Ideally, this would include not just pointing out the flaws in logic, but also find direct sources for the specific details. That is, don't just post a link to some article written but some reporter/nerd on the internet asserting that this company had these rights but not those rights; find if not the actual court docs then an article citing them.

I realize this is a high bar. That's kinda my point: this sort of situation is exactly why saying "I'm right, these other guys are wrong" on the internet is a not so hot idea.

Then refute away instead of wasting everyone's time like you did.

[Menetius]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Long after the release of BattleDroids/BattleTech did they come up with new designs. The deciding factor for using the original 16 mechs was because TCI had the model kits ready to be sold. If you're doing a miniature wargame you need to have the kits necessary to play. The first three editions of the Battletech Boxed Sets used the TCI model kits exclusively. It is a lot cheaper and faster to use something already in production then it is to create new designs and kits from scratch. Battletech didn't get new mech kits until 1986 and that was from Ral Partha, so you're looking at 2 years from the release of the first two editions of the BattleTech boxed sets. That is a long time between the boxed sets and the kits.

That... doesn't really answer my question. My question was why TCI/FASA/whichever made the initial decision decided to reproduce Macross designs in the first place. Was it supposed to be some sort of tribute to Macross?

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Well, just understand that Land-Air Mechs have been a part of BattleTech from day 1. You may not like them, but there are plenty of people that do. It was the main reason why these people started playing to begin with.

Oh, I know. I own a copy of the 3025 TRO. It's just... It's one thing to get a 50-ton object airborne with vertical thrust, it's another thing entirely to make a 50-ton object less than half the size of a C-130 Hercules, which weighs 15 tons less when fully burdened, airworthy. Like I said; for me, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief.

The crippling lack of armor disconcerts me, as well. But, at least that makes sense with respect to its airworthiness.

Edited by Menetius, 14 October 2013 - 01:45 PM.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Menetius, on 14 October 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

That... doesn't really answer my question. My question was why TCI/FASA/whichever made the initial decision decided to reproduce Macross designs in the first place. Was it supposed to be some sort of tribute to Macross?

Nope, it was a business plan of TCI to import Japanese model kits into the US using the Yen to Dollar conversion to maximize profits. It had nothing to do with it being a tribute to anything other than the all mighty dollar.

Menetius, on 14 October 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

Oh, I know. I own a copy of the 3025 TRO. It's just... It's one thing to get a 50-ton object airborne with vertical thrust, it's another thing entirely to make a 50-ton object less than half the size of a C-130 Hercules, which weighs 15 tons less when fully burdened, airworthy. Like I said; for me, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief.

The crippling lack of armor disconcerts me, as well. But, at least that makes sense with respect to its airworthiness.

For perspective look at the F14. It weighs 37 tons fully loaded and it moves faster then the speed of sound while being two thirds the size of the C130. The F22 Raptor weighs 42.5 tons while being just about half the size of the C130. It is a matter of perspective since we already have fighters that are about the same weight as a LAM. That should make it easier on the suspension of disbelief.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 October 2013 - 02:17 PM.

[Menetius]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

Nope, it was a business plan of TCI to import Japanese model kits into the US using the Yen to Dollar conversion to maximize profits. It had nothing to do with it being a tribute to anything other than the all mighty dollar.

Oh. Great.

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 02:16 PM, said:

For perspective look at the F14. It weighs 37 tons fully loaded and it moves faster then the speed of sound while being two thirds the size of the C130. The F22 Raptor weighs 42.5 tons while being just about half the size of the C130. It is a matter of perspective since we already have fighters that are about the same weight as a LAM. That should make it easier on the suspension of disbelief.

I re-read the specs-sheet for the C-130 Hercules; I mis-interpreted its maximum load (what's inside the C-130) for its maximum takeoff weight (combines load with craft weight). A C-130 weighs about 70-75 tons when fully laden.

... I really need to thoroughly reads these specs. But anyway, thanks for all the explanation.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Menetius, on 14 October 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

Oh. Great.

I re-read the specs-sheet for the C-130 Hercules; I mis-interpreted its maximum load (what's inside the C-130) for its maximum takeoff weight (combines load with craft weight). A C-130 weighs about 70-75 tons when fully laden.

... I really need to thoroughly reads these specs. But anyway, thanks for all the explanation.

This will be more helpful. Here are the dimensions of the VF-1 Valkyrie for reference for the Phoenix Hawk LAM. The Wasp and Stinger LAMs are half the size of the Phoenix Hawk LAM¹.

Dimensions:

• Battroid Mode: height 12.68 meters (41.60105 feet); width 7.3 meters (23.9501 feet); length 4.0 meters (13.1234 feet)
  
• Fighter Mode: wingspan 14.78 meters (48.392388 feet)(fully extended); height 3.84 meters (12.59843 feet); length 14.23 meters (46.686352 feet)
  
• GERWALK Mode: wingspan 14.78 meters (48.392388 feet)(fully extended); height 8.7 meters (28.5433 feet); length 11.3 meters (37.07349 feet)

http://www.macross2....1a-valkyrie.htm


1-According to Tech Readout: 3025 original so this would make the Wasp and Stinger LAMs have the following dimensions:

Wasp

• Battroid Mode: height 6.34 meters (20.80052 feet); width 3.65 meters (11.97507 feet); length 2.0 meters (6.56168 feet)
  
• Fighter Mode: wingspan 7.39 (24.24541 feet) (fully extended); height 1.92 meters (6.299213 feet); length 7.115 meters (23.343176 feet)
  
• GERWALK Mode: wingspan 7.39 meters (24.24541 feet) (fully extended); height 4.35 meters (14.27165 feet); length 5.65 meters (18.53675 feet)

Stinger

• Battroid Mode: height 6.34 meters (20.80052 feet); width 3.65 meters (11.97507 feet); length 2.0 meters (6.56168 feet)
  
• Fighter Mode: wingspan 7.39 (24.24541 feet) (fully extended); height 1.92 meters (6.299213 feet); length 7.115 meters (23.343176 feet)
  
• GERWALK Mode: wingspan 7.39 meters (24.24541 feet) (fully extended); height 4.35 meters (14.27165 feet); length 5.65 meters (18.53675 feet)

Battriod mode is the name for Mech mode and GERWALK is the name they have for Air-Mech mode in Macross. As you can see it's not that hard to suspend belief in the existence of LAMs considering that real world aircraft are roughly the same size.

Edited by James The Fox Dixon, 14 October 2013 - 03:06 PM.

[Blue Footed Booby]

James The Fox Dixon, on 14 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Then refute away instead of wasting everyone's time like you did.

That's not how burden of proof works.

[merz]

Blue Footed Booby, on 11 October 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

It's a lot like trying to figure out if Varg Vikernes was actually convicted of arson, or just murder.

bonus points. LLN references next?

[Karyudo ds]

By using the TCi kits in the first three editions you just meant the designs and not literally the kits right?

It's sort of sad to me that as much as I hate what Robotech stands for Battlecry seemed better than most of the Macross videogame catalog and the new Tactics is more than I would ever expect out of Japan... Even though they do have 40k.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Karyudo ds, on 15 October 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

By using the TCi kits in the first three editions you just meant the designs and not literally the kits right?

It's sort of sad to me that as much as I hate what Robotech stands for Battlecry seemed better than most of the Macross videogame catalog and the new Tactics is more than I would ever expect out of Japan... Even though they do have 40k.

FASA used the 1/255th scale model kits.

[Koniving]

I'm honestly imagining if they do go through with this, they would likely allocate the torso cannon turret to the left or right and fix it. That'd be where I would cry, though. Not so much having it off to the side, but to affix it permanently.

Much like the Wolverine and the Locust, I'm actually very unhappy that the turrets don't actually... "turret."

I want it to aim left or right with the arms. It's what turrets do.