1809 replies to this topic

[FireStoat]

Sereglach, on 19 June 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

Also, this guy seems to be assuming that HG is getting paid in these settlements. To me, it seems HG should be approaching the settlement table with their tail between their legs, because they've had their butts handed to them on the evidence side of things.

I noticed that too. The video author is simply assuming that any plaintiff in a settlement is automatically being paid off by a defendant if a settlement happens, which is pure bullcrap. The reason why HBS and HG settled was because HBS was NOT including the Unseen in the new Battletech PC game as well as the image comparisons (marauder, locust, etc.) being completely stupid and having no weight in an actual trial. HBS cut the legs out from under HG's suit and they knew it.

Meanwhile, PGI stood firm on their "show the court the papers of proof of your claims of rights" and HG knew that in the end, they couldn't. The legal fee costs up to that point as well as the penalty legal fees they'd have to pay after they would eventually lose was hanging over HG's head like an ACME anvil. The author conveniently skipped the details of those two situations and just blandly stated "oh, HG was paid off so it's over."

[Sereglach]

FireStoat, on 19 June 2018 - 07:57 AM, said:

I noticed that too. The video author is simply assuming that any plaintiff in a settlement is automatically being paid off by a defendant if a settlement happens, which is pure bullcrap. The reason why HBS and HG settled was because HBS was NOT including the Unseen in the new Battletech PC game as well as the image comparisons (marauder, locust, etc.) being completely stupid and having no weight in an actual trial. HBS cut the legs out from under HG's suit and they knew it.

Meanwhile, PGI stood firm on their "show the court the papers of proof of your claims of rights" and HG knew that in the end, they couldn't. The legal fee costs up to that point as well as the penalty legal fees they'd have to pay after they would eventually lose was hanging over HG's head like an ACME anvil. The author conveniently skipped the details of those two situations and just blandly stated "oh, HG was paid off so it's over."

Exactly. Unlike the Leonard French updates, that guy didn't even remotely touch on any of the material surrounding the lawsuit. Honestly it just feels like the guy wants to drum up drama and get a bunch of video clicks.

[Chados]

He actually referred to a document filed June 7 where HG and PGI jointly withdrew HG’s motion for letters rogatory and PGI’s motion for summary judgment because they’ve agreed to a settlement in principle and are working on the settlement documents. I’ve been predicting this ever since HBS caved in and dropped the Unseen from the new Battletech game.

The question is what that settlement will look like. We won’t know what the details of it are, they’ll keep it all very secret. My guess is no Unseen in MW5 for one. It isn’t a coincidence that they delayed the release til 2019. This has something to do with it, I’d bet on it. But how it will impact MWO is anyone’s guess.

[Vanguard836]

Chados, on 19 June 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

He actually referred to a document filed June 7 where HG and PGI jointly withdrew HG’s motion for letters rogatory and PGI’s motion for summary judgment because they’ve agreed to a settlement in principle and are working on the settlement documents. I’ve been predicting this ever since HBS caved in and dropped the Unseen from the new Battletech game.

The question is what that settlement will look like. We won’t know what the details of it are, they’ll keep it all very secret. My guess is no Unseen in MW5 for one. It isn’t a coincidence that they delayed the release til 2019. This has something to do with it, I’d bet on it. But how it will impact MWO is anyone’s guess.

Or are putting them in, same thing however being that we won't know details of the settlement and might not. On the upside, the current unseens are still on the store page here so there is that.

[AEgg]

Chados, on 19 June 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

He actually referred to a document filed June 7 where HG and PGI jointly withdrew HG’s motion for letters rogatory and PGI’s motion for summary judgment because they’ve agreed to a settlement in principle and are working on the settlement documents. I’ve been predicting this ever since HBS caved in and dropped the Unseen from the new Battletech game.

The question is what that settlement will look like. We won’t know what the details of it are, they’ll keep it all very secret. My guess is no Unseen in MW5 for one. It isn’t a coincidence that they delayed the release til 2019. This has something to do with it, I’d bet on it. But how it will impact MWO is anyone’s guess.

Seems super unlikely. Unless HG paid off PGI because they were afraid of losing the 'rights' they don't actually have in an open trial, I can't see why PGI would agree to pull anything.

[Sereglach]

Chados, on 19 June 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

He actually referred to a document filed June 7 where HG and PGI jointly withdrew HG’s motion for letters rogatory and PGI’s motion for summary judgment because they’ve agreed to a settlement in principle and are working on the settlement documents. I’ve been predicting this ever since HBS caved in and dropped the Unseen from the new Battletech game.

But that's all he did. His statements sound like, "They've moved to settle, so it's game over and the sky's falling on the unseen! Woe to Battletech fans!" The reality is that the legal situation moving into the settlement negotiations are very bad for HG. Sure, most cases settle, but right now things are stacked very badly against HG; and this settlement process is looking a whole lot like what happened in HG vs. Hasbro, right before HG was sent packing with their tail between their legs.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Sereglach, on 19 June 2018 - 07:07 PM, said:

But that's all he did. His statements sound like, "They've moved to settle, so it's game over and the sky's falling on the unseen! Woe to Battletech fans!"

I didn't get that notion from him after watching his video. I think he was projecting pity and sympathy for the battletech fan base because in reality, this case is still up in the air even though things might have been looking good for PGI. He was pointing out the legal flaws in our US court system (which I agree with him 100% on) and I think he understands the frustration that the battletech fan base have been suffering for all of these years. It might be great for PGI in the long run if they are allowed to produce the remaining unreleased unseen for MW:O(strong evidence of this pointing to the recently announced Incubus), but until we see what was publicity released for the settlement anything we say here is just pure speculation.

Chados, on 19 June 2018 - 04:41 PM, said:

He actually referred to a document filed June 7 where HG and PGI jointly withdrew HG’s motion for letters rogatory and PGI’s motion for summary judgment because they’ve agreed to a settlement in principle and are working on the settlement documents. I’ve been predicting this ever since HBS caved in and dropped the Unseen from the new Battletech game.

The question is what that settlement will look like. We won’t know what the details of it are, they’ll keep it all very secret. My guess is no Unseen in MW5 for one. It isn’t a coincidence that they delayed the release til 2019. This has something to do with it, I’d bet on it. But how it will impact MWO is anyone’s guess.

And I'll bet with the recently announced Incubus (which is an unseen) they probably worked something out to get the remaining VMI mechs in MW:O and possibly MW:5 if they decide to do clan expansion packs. I'm not sure what that will spell for mechs outside the VMI category (like the Crusader and Longbow for example) but I'm looking forwards to any PGI remaining redesigned reseens that they might have in store for us.

Edited by Arnold The Governator, 19 June 2018 - 08:16 PM.

[Sereglach]

Arnold The Governator, on 19 June 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

*snip* . . . until we see what was publicity released for the settlement anything we say here is just pure speculation.

This, in my opinion, is the most important part. The reason I was making the statements I was making is that he's jumping to a lot of conclusions in his video where he isn't even taking the whole context of the case into account; and for the most part -I'd say mostly because they're made out of context- his remarks were made in a way that's very negative for PGI and Battletech fans. We do need to see the results of the settlement negotiations before we can say anything for sure. Of course . . . that's if they even settle and don't just end up reinstating their last motions to the judge. Only time will tell.

For how you felt he came across, everyone probably feels something at least a little different about it; and some -like us- drastically different. To each their own, I suppose. I would just like that, if someone is going to give a legal analysis of the case, they actually give the full context of everything going on and go over all of the possibilities. Maybe that would have stopped him from sounding so negative and so much like a "sky is falling" doomsayer to me.

[Sereglach]

Arnold The Governator, on 19 June 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

And I'll bet with the recently announced Incubus (which is an unseen) they probably worked something out to get the remaining VMI mechs in MW:O and possibly MW:5 if they decide to do clan expansion packs. I'm not sure what that will spell for mechs outside the VMI category (like the Crusader and Longbow for example) but I'm looking forwards to any PGI remaining redesigned reseens that they might have in store for us.

HG has literally NOTHING to do with the VMI mechs. This was gone over in great length over the last few pages. Those unseen were only declared unseen, by FASA, because they weren't done "in house". There's no reason for PGI to make a deal over those mechs. One could argue -as, again, I stated when this came up before- that HG might get angry over the IIC mechs with names from the original classics/unseen . . . but that's exclusively because of the name and the fact that HG are sue-happy IP trolls.

I'm willing to bet PGI put the Incubus into the game just to show HG they can do it and there's nothing HG can do about it. It might have been chosen because -like the Project Phoenix mechs- there was no legal issue with adding them to the game and giving them PGI's own artistic spin. However, those thoughts are both pure speculation on my part.

Personally, my vision of a "best case scenario" on the settlement negotiations is that HG is sent packing just like Hasbro did to them over the Jetfire issue; and the Battletech IP is finally released from this abysmal and maligned shackle. Then PGI can get back to remaking the classics, HBS can use them in their Battletech game, and somehow things work out well for CGL (that last one is a bit of a longshot after the BS default, but still possibly winnable).

[Ken Harkin]

I agree, the video isn't painting what I believe is an accurate picture.

HG absolutely does not want a judgement against them which kills their standing and that is what was clearly coming.

PGI wants access to the unseen with no future issues and would like to stop paying legal bills to get to the end.

PGI would also not mind others being unable to compete with the same designs.

Having HG and PGI come to a settlement allowing PGI to use the designs while saving on future lawyer expenses and HG being able to still go after others using those designs works for both parties. Sadly it isn't great for BT fans overall but this isn't about satisfying our bloodlust for HG, it is a business decision.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Sereglach, on 19 June 2018 - 08:51 PM, said:

HG has literally NOTHING to do with the VMI mechs. This was gone over in great length over the last few pages. Those unseen were only declared unseen, by FASA, because they weren't done "in house". There's no reason for PGI to make a deal over those mechs. One could argue -as, again, I stated when this came up before- that HG might get angry over the IIC mechs with names from the original classics/unseen . . . but that's exclusively because of the name and the fact that HG are sue-happy IP trolls.

Oh yes, I knew that from the beginning ever since I started spamming Rifleman IIC awareness after doing some research on my own. Apparently some people on this website back in the day didn't understand that the VMI mechs have nothing to do with the Macross/Robotech mechs because of how FASA categorized them. If I had a time machine I would have slapped whoever threw those said mechs into the unseen category. Yet again, if I had a time machine I would have erased Harmony Gold from existence so this head ache wouldn't exist to begin with.

[Shadowomega1]

Arnold The Governator, on 20 June 2018 - 09:26 AM, said:

Oh yes, I knew that from the beginning ever since I started spamming Rifleman IIC awareness after doing some research on my own. Apparently some people on this website back in the day didn't understand that the VMI mechs have nothing to do with the Macross/Robotech mechs because of how FASA categorized them. If I had a time machine I would have slapped whoever threw those said mechs into the unseen category. Yet again, if I had a time machine I would have erased Harmony Gold from existence so this head ache wouldn't exist to begin with.

Well in the Legal doc from HG they were going after the Rifleman for its Arms (Barrels), Legs and Air Search Radar. So yea they would go after the Rifleman IIC because of Barrel arms. HG was being petty was the point of those comments, not because it was unseen.

[Valdarion Silarius]

Shadowomega1, on 20 June 2018 - 09:34 AM, said:

Well in the Legal doc from HG they were going after the Rifleman for its Arms (Barrels), Legs and Air Search Radar. So yea they would go after the Rifleman IIC because of Barrel arms. HG was being petty was the point of those comments, not because it was unseen.

Which if they were to go after the barrel arms, then one can argue that they can go after the blaster/laser gun on the recently released Incubus. I think that argument has no merit (as you obviously already know just by reading your comment) since as someone posted here earlier in this thread, there has to be so many things on a design that are direct copies in order to violate a copyright claim. The mech looks absolutely nothing like the macross destroid, and HG would be shooting themselves repeatedly in the foot again if they wanted to reopen the case and take PGI to court over a redesigned nuseen RFL-IIC that is made by their art team.

[BadgerWI]

He may be blowing it out of proportion in the video but he right in that PGI is going to pay HG to go away. This will probably mean we get to keep our mechs and maybe even get some new ones in MWO. But it most likely will not help get the unseens into HBS's BT game or help catalyst like crushing court defeat would have. I know PGI is not the defender of all things BT and their job is to do what's best for MWO and PGI. But it would have been nice to get this wrapped up.

[Horseman]

Arnold The Governator, on 20 June 2018 - 09:49 AM, said:

there has to be so many things on a design that are direct copies in order to violate a copyright claim.

More precisely, the plaintiff has to define what constitutes the protectible trade dress of their design - and those elements cannot be generic (which barrel arms and a top spoiler pretty much are).

BadgerWI, on 20 June 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

He may be blowing it out of proportion in the video but he right in that PGI is going to pay HG to go away.

We don't know that for sure just yet.

Edited by Horseman, 20 June 2018 - 12:01 PM.

[Sereglach]

BadgerWI, on 20 June 2018 - 10:46 AM, said:

He may be blowing it out of proportion in the video but he right in that PGI is going to pay HG to go away. This will probably mean we get to keep our mechs and maybe even get some new ones in MWO. But it most likely will not help get the unseens into HBS's BT game or help catalyst like crushing court defeat would have. I know PGI is not the defender of all things BT and their job is to do what's best for MWO and PGI. But it would have been nice to get this wrapped up.

There's no indication that HG will be paid anything. If it's like the Hasbro vs. HG suit over Jetfire, HG didn't get anything. In fact HG was sent packing with its tail between its legs. Everything else there is jumping to conclusions that we won't know until we have access to more documents.

However, given the legal evidence against HG, if it's dismissed like the Jetfire case then PGI will be able to make whatever they want after that. Then, given that HBS is licensing the mech designs from PGI, HBS will be able to use whatever they want to license from PGI. After all, it's quite likely that part of the reason that HG dismissed the lawsuit against HBS was because of the fact that all the mech art they use is licensed from PGI, HG wasn't suing PGI over the designs they were suing HBS over, and HBS wasn't having any reimagined classics in their initial release of the game . . . therefore HG had nothing to actually sue HBS over.

As for Catalyst . . . well . . . the default has a lot of shady BS surrounding it and there's still a chance they'd be able to fight back, albeit a bit of a longshot.

[Marauder3D]

ITS OVER!!! THEY SETTLED!

Go to bg.battletech.com for the details, but HG settled. Terms were favorable, and it is being discussed over there. We don't know all the details yet, but things look good, because it is WITH PREJUDICE, meaning HG can't pull this BS again!

LONG LIVE BATTLETECH, THANK YOU PGI!!!!!

[evilauthor]

Here's the relevant Court Document.

And one poster's interpretation of what it means:

Quote

It means that PGI won because look at where it says with prejudice. HG can no longer sue any company that licenses or owns Battletech over the characters from Macross. We won boys and girls!

Edited by evilauthor, 21 June 2018 - 06:09 AM.

[NimoStar]

Maybe they settled with PGI but nothing says they won't pull this again with other battletech stuff when made by other developer?

[The Lighthouse]

NimoStar, on 21 June 2018 - 06:17 AM, said:

Maybe they settled with PGI but nothing says they won't pull this again with other battletech stuff when made by other developer?

Quote

(for the avoidance of doubt, this includes dismissal of all claims against defaulted defendant Inmediares Productions, LLC).

With prejudice as well. This means HG no longer can pull this stuffs to companies that deal with Battletech.

I just wish PGI's actual game development capacity is as good as its legal team's performance really.