1809 replies to this topic

[Valdarion Silarius]

Jay Leon Hart, on 10 August 2017 - 06:33 AM, said:

Wow, that is some Reddit / Tumblr levels of idiocy and entitlement, right there. GW are by no means squeaky clean, but my goodness...

What gets me are all the idiots cheering on this David Moore guy like he is some kind of hero (look up on youtube GW getting sued by David Moore). Yes, I agree that W40k miniatures are indeed overpriced and that GW might have a monopoly over table top gaming. If this bozo manages to win his court case, then GW has every right not to distribute their content in North America because of the f'ed up court system and laws in this country. I think Games Workshop will be fine though, since they have an army of lawyers and legal experts that could make anyone get away with murder in broad daylight if they wanted to.

I'm not a legal expert or a person that studies law, but I wonder why PGI consented to the HG trial if they are selling virtual products from Canada. Is it some kind of national law if an American company tries to sue an foreign company, that foreign company has to consent to the court hearing to sell virtual products? I understand that probably a majority of sales for PGI are probably from North America, but what is stopping them from distributing physical products of the designs (if they had any) that HG is crying about if they wanted to sell things outside of North America?

Edited by Arnold The Governator, 10 August 2017 - 08:28 AM.

[C E Dwyer]

RussianWolf, on 10 August 2017 - 07:06 AM, said:

long drawn out case doesn't bode particularly well for PGI. They have to pay their lawyers to respond to everything filed in the mean time. That costs money. PGI has one revenue stream that we are aware of. HG has multiple. One thing HG may do is file a motion stopping the sell of disputed items until the case is determined. Given what we can see in the briefs, they could cut off PGIs revenue stream entirely.

Can PGI survive long enough to win? That is what you need to ask yourselves.

while of course pointless rumours, and assumptions are free

[Bombast]

Arnold The Governator, on 10 August 2017 - 08:26 AM, said:

I'm not a legal expert or a person that studies law, but I wonder why PGI consented to the HG trial if they are selling virtual products from Canada. Is it some kind of national law if an American company tries to sue an foreign company, that foreign company has to consent to the court hearing to sell virtual products? I understand that probably a majority of sales for PGI are probably from North America, but what is stopping them from distributing physical products of the designs (if they had any) that HG is crying about if they wanted to sell things outside of North America?

Not a lawyer, but...

HG's goal, if they stay true to form, is to get 'shut up and go away' money. Shutting down the company isn't a goal.

In theory though, no, HG can't stop PGI from selling anything outside of the United States, anymore than a US court can stop all those Chinese car companies from ripping off German car designs in their domestic market. What they can aim for is limiting what can be sold in the US (Considering PGI's market, yes, this could be considered a bit semantic), damages (Difficult to prove when you don't really make a competing product), or for PGI to hand over the money they've made with the designs in the US.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Bombast, on 10 August 2017 - 08:40 AM, said:

Not a lawyer, but...

HG's goal, if they stay true to form, is to get 'shut up and go away' money. Shutting down the company isn't a goal.

In theory though, no, HG can't stop PGI from selling anything outside of the United States, anymore than a US court can stop all those Chinese car companies from ripping off German car designs in their domestic market. What they can aim for is limiting what can be sold in the US (Considering PGI's market, yes, this could be considered a bit semantic), damages (Difficult to prove when you don't really make a competing product), or for PGI to hand over the money they've made with the designs in the US.

This sounds like a really weak court case the more I hear about it. Harmony Gold never made those designs to begin with, they just "co-own" them with a Japanese company from overseas. I really hope HG makes themselves look like fools in court in front of everyone before going bankrupt. I have zero respect for the team behind HG and this David Moore guy that are doing this to make a quick buck.

[Novakaine]

Once again I must point out the harmony troll only held video distribution rights for Macross.
In the US.
Not a single damn thing else.

[Bud Crue]

Arnold The Governator, on 10 August 2017 - 08:58 AM, said:

This sounds like a really weak court case the more I hear about it. Harmony Gold never made those designs to begin with, they just "co-own" them with a Japanese company from overseas. I really hope HG makes themselves look like fools in court in front of everyone before going bankrupt. I have zero respect for the team behind HG and this David Moore guy that are doing this to make a quick buck.

It is weak. The only...ONLY...aspect that looks legit is the assertion that Weisman originally agreed to never use even derivative works of HG's property. If that is true, and they can convince a judge that HBS is subject to that agreement via the relationship with Weisman, then HG may be able to convince a judge that HBS/Weisman is in breach of that original settlement via HBS/Weisman's use of PGI's art which is almost certain to be found to be derivative of the images owned by HG.

That is the sole issue that I think has a shot in hell of being allowed to proceed. If the thing survives summary judgment, then it is likely that HBS will just write a check and the whole thing will be done. I guarantee that in any case this will never go to a final judgment. It will settle or get tossed before then. My mechpack is on settlement. A lot will depend on the valuation of HBS and how much is attributable to the asserted breach.

[SMDMadCow]

Bud Crue, on 10 August 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

It is weak. The only...ONLY...aspect that looks legit is the assertion that Weisman originally agreed to never use even derivative works of HG's property. If that is true, and they can convince a judge that HBS is subject to that agreement via the relationship with Weisman, then HG may be able to convince a judge that HBS/Weisman is in breach of that original settlement via HBS/Weisman's use of PGI's art which is almost certain to be found to be derivative of the images owned by HG.

That is the sole issue that I think has a shot in hell of being allowed to proceed. If the thing survives summary judgment, then it is likely that HBS will just write a check and the whole thing will be done. I guarantee that in any case this will never go to a final judgment. It will settle or get tossed before then. My mechpack is on settlement. A lot will depend on the valuation of HBS and how much is attributable to the asserted breach.

If HG is found to not have the rights then that agreement is null and void.

[Bombast]

Bud Crue, on 10 August 2017 - 09:15 AM, said:

It is weak. The only...ONLY...aspect that looks legit is the assertion that Weisman originally agreed to never use even derivative works of HG's property. If that is true, and they can convince a judge that HBS is subject to that agreement via the relationship with Weisman, then HG may be able to convince a judge that HBS/Weisman is in breach of that original settlement via HBS/Weisman's use of PGI's art which is almost certain to be found to be derivative of the images owned by HG.

That is the sole issue that I think has a shot in hell of being allowed to proceed. If the thing survives summary judgment, then it is likely that HBS will just write a check and the whole thing will be done. I guarantee that in any case this will never go to a final judgment. It will settle or get tossed before then. My mechpack is on settlement. A lot will depend on the valuation of HBS and how much is attributable to the asserted breach.

All possible, but the weird thing is that, while HBS is slated to use some of those designs, they haven't actually done so yet. If that really is the goal of the lawsuit, and that becomes more obvious to HBS prior to the release of the game, couldn't the just say 'F it, sorry fans, we're cutting these two designs' and circumvent the entire lawsuit right there?

If you really look at the HBS/Weisman specific portions of the lawsuit, their really, really weak, mostly because they couldn't dig up any examples of those two actually using the 'derived' designs.

SMDMadCow, on 10 August 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

If HG is found to not have the rights then that agreement is null and void.

Are PGI/HBS contesting that? I'm not even sure that's actually a defense they can mount.

[Alan Davion]

Bombast, on 10 August 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

All possible, but the weird thing is that, while HBS is slated to use some of those designs, they haven't actually done so yet. If that really is the goal of the lawsuit, and that becomes more obvious to HBS prior to the release of the game, couldn't the just say 'F it, sorry fans, we're cutting these two designs' and circumvent the entire lawsuit right there?

If you really look at the HBS/Weisman specific portions of the lawsuit, their really, really weak, mostly because they couldn't dig up any examples of those two actually using the 'derived' designs.

Personally I think HG's primary target here is PGI, given they released mechs such as the Phoenix Hawk and Archer, while HBS was only set to use the Marauder and Warhammer. The others might have come later if this BS hadn't started up.

To me this makes the most sense, seeing as the HBS art they posted, any 2 year old could tell that they are not the same thing. This is just HG and their 30-someodd year old rage stiffy against Jordan Weisman.

Bombast, on 10 August 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Are PGI/HBS contesting that? I'm not even sure that's actually a defense they can mount.

If you read the documents, somewhere in PGI and HBS's responses to this brouhaha, they made direct reference to the fact that HG does not actually own the rights they claim they own. HG has just gotten away with it for this long because no one has ever actually had the balls to challenge HG's claim.

[SMDMadCow]

Bombast, on 10 August 2017 - 09:25 AM, said:

Are PGI/HBS contesting that? I'm not even sure that's actually a defense they can mount.

Yes, PGI has specifically said that in their answer to the complaint.
Why could that not be a defense? You say you own this thing, prove it. Can't? Then you don't have standing.

Edited by SMDMadCow, 10 August 2017 - 09:53 AM.

[Bombast]

SMDMadCow, on 10 August 2017 - 09:51 AM, said:

Yes, PGI has specifically said that in their answer to the complaint.

Alan Davion, on 10 August 2017 - 09:47 AM, said:

If you read the documents, somewhere in PGI and HBS's responses to this brouhaha, they made direct reference to the fact that HG does not actually own the rights they claim they own. HG has just gotten away with it for this long because no one has ever actually had the balls to challenge HG's claim.

Neat.

[Dee Eight]

Novakaine, on 10 August 2017 - 09:06 AM, said:

Once again I must point out the harmony troll only held video distribution rights for Macross.
In the US.
Not a single damn thing else.

Internationally outside japan. EVERY country that isn't Japan is what was part of the rebroadcast license for SDF Macross. Not merely the USA. That they re-edited the material to use as part of different language story wasn't new to the japanese anime industry (speed racer, battle of the planets, Albator, Goldarak, etc) and thus why Studio Nue/BigWest never took them to court over Robotech.

Robotech is copyrighted... the original material however is not something they can copyright, or enforce a copyright of, and while they can claim to not acknowledge the japanese court's decision... it becomes a "well if the japanese court decision isn't valid, then why was the original contrack with the japanese animation studio valid" ? You cannot argue one is valid and the other isn't. Either you're subject to japanese business law rules and rulings, or you're not. The original contract to purchase the international broadcast rights was made with a japanese company, and fell under japanese laws.

[Bud Crue]

SMDMadCow, on 10 August 2017 - 09:23 AM, said:

If HG is found to not have the rights then that agreement is null and void.

Yes. Just one of the reasons why it is so weak.
As I mentioned from the get go on this thread, when the entire complaint is read, the absolute worst outcome for HBS is having to write a check; and that is only if a very select set of circumstances and "facts" are held to be applicable. As to PGI I see no way that a court will find any of their designs to be anything other than derivative (but non infringing) and for PGI that is totally fine. For HBS it will come down to: what will cost us more? The attorney fees to defend this stupid thing or write a check?

It isn't right, it isn't fare, but that is what it will come down to.

[James Argent]

They should also weigh the cost over time of caving and writing HG a check now, two years from now, five years from now, and on and on and on vs. fighting, winning, and being free forever from HG's interference.

Also, I think I got some rage spittle splashed on me just from reading that GW lawsuit filing.

[SMDMadCow]

Bud Crue, on 10 August 2017 - 10:43 AM, said:

Yes. Just one of the reasons why it is so weak.
As I mentioned from the get go on this thread, when the entire complaint is read, the absolute worst outcome for HBS is having to write a check; and that is only if a very select set of circumstances and "facts" are held to be applicable. As to PGI I see no way that a court will find any of their designs to be anything other than derivative (but non infringing) and for PGI that is totally fine. For HBS it will come down to: what will cost us more? The attorney fees to defend this stupid thing or write a check?

It isn't right, it isn't fare, but that is what it will come down to.

Weisman should counter sue for damages since the 80's, with inflation.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

SMDMadCow, on 10 August 2017 - 12:04 PM, said:

Weisman should counter sue for damages since the 80's, with inflation.

He'd have to make a case to have the original sealed document considered invalid.

[SMDMadCow]

CMDR Sunset Shimmer, on 10 August 2017 - 12:25 PM, said:

He'd have to make a case to have the original sealed document considered invalid.

Which is definitely possible if HG is found to not have the rights they purport.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

SMDMadCow, on 10 August 2017 - 12:43 PM, said:

Which is definitely possible if HG is found to not have the rights they purport.

well, we can hope.

[SMDMadCow]

W E N D I G O, on 11 August 2017 - 03:55 AM, said:

That's actually the reason why HG did this lawsuit, to be found guilty. They are just so stupid, you know. Their lawyers too. They just want to loose everything and couldn't let go of this fine opportunity to finally "be found out to purport rights". After 30 years, imagine how happy they are to finally have found a solution for this dilemma. They even threw in the previous court decision which binds Weisman to not use derivatives of these specific designs to get rid of it too. It's actually a plot to get out of their deal with Sony to cancel the Robotech movie when you think about it, isn't it? But who am I telling this, right? So obvious...

There is no previoius court descision, HG sues in hopes of an out of court settlement. PGI is the party that has demanded a jury trial and their affirmative defense is that HG does not own the copy rights. Any deal between HG and Sony seems irrelevant to the facts of the case.

[Pariah Devalis]

It just fills me with such joy to know that PGI is sticking to the argument that HG doesn't even have the right to sue. I so want this to go to court so that HG can be silenced once and for all.