Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

Stardock's link for the DMCA
Stardock's Q&A explaining their own side

---

Series creators versus current franchise holders. Obviously, both parties have far more details on the matter than is available publicly.

On the one hand, it could be argued that Stardock did its best to avoid any infringement and is being burned by two petty creators. On the other hand, it could be argued that the creators have been pushed into this decision by the flagrant abuse of the copyrights held by Stardock and the publisher should never have proceeded with the game before resolving the open case.

The timing on the case is important: prior to Stardock announcing Star Control: Origins, Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford announced Ghosts of the Precursors, a game they said is a direct sequel to Star Control. Stardock struck back by issuing a Cease and Desist, claiming exclusive rights over the property.

The removal of the games doesn't indicate the validity of the DMCA (which will now have to be argued in legal proceedings between the two parties). Storefronts typically honor a DMCA takedown request and then let the license holders fight it out. This allows storefronts to host content without being held directly responsible i.e. as long as you respond to DMCAs you can't be directly sued for content that infringes upon someone else's copyrights.

 

[Alexios]

Stardock started this iirc with going against the original devs who were doing their own Star Control sequel and now they're playing the innocent victim and blame firing people on them for returning the favor.
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/20...velopers-are-brawling-over-the-series-rights/
Regardless of what the courts decide for this battle hopefully the creators' own game will reach release and be more exciting than Stardock's Star Control: Origins which seemed way too textbook and boring.

Or maybe both will be equally meh, who knows. At least whoever wins the battle will then re-release the old games on the storefronts I imagine. Unless both parties hold partial rights and never agree, lol.

 

[LordRaptor]

I really don't know who's in the right here legally or morally, because both sides have been flinging shit at each other over it.

I do know this is probably Ataris fault deep down, because Stardock bought a thing from them that they seemed sure meant that they were legally entitled to release a game called Star Control.
Assuming they did even the vaguest checks with lawyers as to what they bought, it seems like Atari sold them something they did not actually have the rights to sell, hence lawsuits.

seems like the original Star Control games have been removed from GOG as a result of this, which isn't exactly a 'win' for anyone tbh, so Im glad I bought them prior to any of this shit going down.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I wonder if this is what they thought would happen. My gut reaction is to favor whichever side Wardell isn't on.

 

[Alexios]

I really don't know who's in the right here legally or morally, because both sides have been flinging shit at each other over it.

I do know this is probably Ataris fault deep down, because Stardock bought a thing from them that they seemed sure meant that they were legally entitled to release a game called Star Control.
Assuming they did even the vaguest checks with lawyers as to what they bought, it seems like Atari sold them something they did not actually have the rights to sell, hence lawsuits.

seems like the original Star Control games have been removed from GOG as a result of this, which isn't exactly a 'win' for anyone tbh, so Im glad I bought them prior to any of this shit going down.

People can play the Ur-Quan Masters HD until they're back up on the storefronts, at least before that one gets DMCA'd if they decide to spread their wings further.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/urquanmastershd/ - funnily enough this and other freebies based on the SCII source code mention Stardock owns it in their disclaimers but I guess that's all people knew.

Also Digital Eel's Strange Adventures in Infinite Space is kinda sorta similar but not quite as expansive.
http://www.digital-eel.com/sais/
There was also a sequel/remake kinda thing called Weird Worlds: Return to Infinite Space.
http://www.infinitespacegames.com/weirdworlds/
But these are much more limited, kind of like a condensed board game or FTL style take on it. Edit: oh, there seems to be another sequel to these, I guess they revived it alongside Star Control. WW looks better.

 

[LordRaptor]

Yeah, whatever sympathies I had for the original creators have gone now with their latest update, which is pure bullshit of them claiming legal ownership of any game similar to star control, which is an outrageous fucking claim to make.

https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction

You can do a breakdown like this for any number of game - not the least including Spyro compared to Super Mario 64 and conclude that its 'infringing' on 'look and feel'.
Their Dune comparison is super fucking disingenuous as well.

Even if you really hate brad wardell and are superfans of these dudes, you don't want this shitty argument to get legal precedent.

 

[yet_another_alt]

People can play the Ur-Quan Masters HD until they're back up on the storefronts, at least before that one gets DMCA'd if they decide to spread their wings further.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/urquanmastershd/ - funnily enough this and other freebies based on the SCII source code mention Stardock owns it in their disclaimers but I guess that's all people knew.

Why would the Ur-Quan Masters be DCMA'd when Paul Reiche and Fred Ford have actual ties to the UQM community including giving them the source code. If you actually go to the UQM forums, the support for them there is near unanimous. And hey if we're talking about UQM being shut down we can't miss this juicy bit.

 

[Alexios]

Dude, I just gave an alternative to the guy, lay off. I didn't even say who could potentially DMCA it, it could be Stardock or anybody else changing their mind, just noted it and other such projects are at least currently freely available to people who may have wanted to purchase the oldies but currently aren't able do with this situation. And of course also to people who have the oldies but want the enhancements.

 

[yet_another_alt]

Why so defensive? It's pretty easy to to jump to the conclusion that you mean Reiche and Ford when you say "spread their wings further" since their DCMA is what started this thread. I have no dog in this fight, if anything I vastly prefer Stardock games like GalCiv, Political Machine and Sins of a Solar Empire to anything Reiche and Ford have done. People are suddenly taking sides cause a game got taken down which never looks good but this has been a legal battle that's been brewing for a while.

 

[Alexios]

So don't jump to conclusions easily then, that's your choice. My first post was against Stardock anyway, not that anything about this is a good look for anyone.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Why would the Ur-Quan Masters be DCMA'd when Paul Reiche and Fred Ford have actual ties to the UQM community including giving them the source code. If you actually go to the UQM forums, the support for them there is near unanimous. And hey if we're talking about UQM being shut down we can't miss this juicy bit.

The thread you linked is incredibly relevant to the discussion.

 

[HyGogg]

It looks like Stardock's entirely legal strategy has switched to trying to drag out proceedings and rack up costs as much as possible to incentivize Paul and Fred to settle, and the judge is really having none of it.

This whole case is so profoundly fucking stupid. At this point Stardock is just trying to hold onto the notion that they hold a valid rights to anything other than Star Control 3, but they were offered settlements that would have secured that for them repeatedly and declined them on the grounds that they own exclusive rights to the classic IP that even Accolade did not hold (and the rest of which lapsed back to Paul and Fred years before Stardock's purchase). The entire debacle seems to be the work of an insane, delusional man (Wardell) not content to simply make his game with the rights he had, but completely unable to produce any convincing evidence to the contrary beyond his own insistence. All this despite the fact that he repeatedly acknowledged in emails not owning these rights.

The judge seems extremely unsympathetic to Stardock at this point, repeatedly denying all of Stardock's motions to delay. I think it's highly likely Stardock is going to leave this lawsuit with less rights than they were assumed to have at the start and probably have to pay Fred and Paul's legal fees.

 

[Mihos]

All I know, is I paid for the founders edition and my planet name was approved but never put in the game. Put me on the witness stand....

 

[Nickolaidas]

Star Control II was my favourite game back in the 90's, and it remained for many years that followed. I had the highest respect for Paul and Fred, but the recent developments made me lose some of that respect.

I find it awfully suspicious that after tens of years dicking around with Skylanders, they are finally able to do a proper sequel to Star Control, and they announce it a few weeks before Origins got released. That was a dick move of the highest caliber and I think it was made purely to make the fans go apeshit and accuse Wardell of attempting to ruin the two creators' vision.

Wardell is an asshole - you only need to visit the Ur-Quan forums to see the bullshit he tried to pull by tricking the webmasters there into giving him a legal precedent by acknowledging the Ur-Quan Masters trademark as his -but Paul and Fred also acted like assholes by toying with the hopes of the fans via a game which will surely turn out to be vaporware and by screwing with Wardell in the worst possible manner. I have no sympathy for either party at the moment - Wardell for attempting to present the creators of one of my favorite games as design consultants or something, and Paul and Fred for crapping on the only decent Star Control-alike game that came out since 98 and for taking me for a fool by promising me a sequel that I'll never see (I'm pretty sure the word 'Ghosts' in the title of their 'game' is an inside-joke, because the game is *vapor*ware).

Both sides are pretty petty about this and totally killed any enthusiasm I had for either project.

 

[HyGogg]

Star Control II was my favourite game back in the 90's, and it remained for many years that followed. I had the highest respect for Paul and Fred, but the recent developments made me lose some of that respect.

I find it awfully suspicious that after tens of years dicking around with Skylanders, they are finally able to do a proper sequel to Star Control, and they announce it a few weeks before Origins got released. That was a dick move of the highest caliber and I think it was made purely to make the fans go apeshit and accuse Wardell of attempting to ruin the two creators' vision.

This is not at all accurate to what happened. Wardell was aware of their intent to make a SC sequel since long before Origins was in development and there are emails to prove it. Wardell reached out to Paul and Fred after purchasing the SC3 rights and asked to license their IP. They politely declined on the basis that they were planning a game of their own. Wardell said he would make a game without their IP and they gave their blessing.

Wardell then decided out of the blue that he magically already had the rights he had been theretofore attempting to purchase, and expressed his explicit intent to incorporate said IP into Origins. He then sued Paul and Fred over their announced sequel. All based on absolutely no new deal and against legal council seemingly based on nothing more than his own wishful imagination.

At this point Paul and Fred are forced to defend their existing IP. They offer Stardock a settlement deal in which Stardock could make Origins and Paul and Fred could make Ghosts and Stardock rejected it because again Wardell magically decreed the owned the UQM IP exclusively and intended to use it in SC:O. All of this well before Origins was released.

Mind you Fred and Paul are the DEFENDANTS in this case. They didn't sue anyone and wanted no part of this circus, but IP law works such that failure to defend against challenges and infringements can be seen as forfeiture, so to not fight back would be to lose their lawfully held IP. They literally declare both publically and in legal negotiations that they intend to use UQM IP in SC:O, and then when this very claim is used as the basis for a DMCA takedown, cry that it's completely ridiculous that anyone would think SC:O infringes on the UQM IP (that they still claim they own). To which the judge responds that she is "disciclined to rescue the plaintiff's chestnuts from a fire of his own making." Paul and Fred literally had no choice and did everything in their power to give Stardock the chance to just move on with their own game. They are not the bad guys here and there's nothing petty about what they've done.

Honestly, I have never seen such inept legal maneuvering. Even Ted Bundy did a better job defending himself. At one point Stardock was actually selling UQM in GOG with zero rights to it. It's like if I started selling Spider-Man 2 DVD copies I made myself and then sued Marvel for selling their own. And then cried that they were sending lawyers after me. What do you think would happen?

I think we need to consider the possibility that Wardell is not just unsavvy, but seriously mentally ill.

 

[HyGogg]

Yeah, whatever sympathies I had for the original creators have gone now with their latest update, which is pure bullshit of them claiming legal ownership of any game similar to star control, which is an outrageous fucking claim to make.

The problem, here is that Stardock is the one that fucking made it. They stated in public and in open fucking court that their game used the IP Paul and Fred claimed to own, a claim he hoped would form the basis of his suit to shut down their game. Then after the court points out that this means their game can be taken down unless they win their ridiculous and completely baseless case, they cry victim about how their game never used the UQM IP.

This is some Jussie Smollett shit here, man. They did this to themselves. They were the ones who filed the lawsuit against Fred and Paul. And then they want to cry because they are losing it.

 

[Nickolaidas]

This is not at all accurate to what happened. Wardell was aware of their intent to make a SC sequel since long before Origins was in development and there are emails to prove it.

Paul and Fred were saying they wanted to make a sequel to SC for the past 20 years through interviews by devoted fans like the Pages of Now and Forever - many years before Wardell. This is nothing new to me and personally this sounded more like 'always wishing to keep the dream alive' to the fans rather than actually planning for a sequel. But lo and behold, they made an official announcement a few weeks before Origins gets released.

If you check their Dogar and Kazon page (which no doubt you did because you are well informed as I) they have absolutely nothing to show for something they've been talking and thinking about for two decades. They announce a sequel and the only thing they have to show to prove it's not vaporware is … a couple of original SC2 drawings? This is their proof that they've been working on this? This is utter bullshit - even the most barebones of kickstarter projects have something to show to prove they're making something. Paul and Fred only have old drawings. It's quite pathetic, really.

You don't think it's suspiciously convenient that they announce a supposed sequel just before Origins came out, as if they just wanted to spite Wardell and turn the fandom against him?

I'll happily eat my own words and admit that I was wrong if they actually make anything, but I doubt it.

 

[HyGogg]

Paul and Fred were saying they wanted to make a sequel to SC for the past 20 years through interviews by devoted fans like the Pages of Now and Forever - many years before Wardell. This is nothing new to me and personally this sounded more like 'always wishing to keep the dream alive' to the fans rather than actually planning for a sequel. But lo and behold, they made an official announcement a few weeks before Origins gets released.

It was about a year before, actually, and again, it followed lengthy talks that demonstrated a mutual understanding of what IP belonged to whom.

If you check their Dogar and Kazon page (which no doubt you did because you are well informed as I) they have absolutely nothing to show for something they've been talking and thinking about for two decades.

Does this mean the IP is up for grabs? The open-source UQM project is basis enough for their continued stewardship of that IP.

Doug Tennappel hasn't made a new Earthworm Jim game in decades. Guess what, I own the Earthworm Jim IP now, and I'm going to sue Doug Tennappel over it!

They announce a sequel and the only thing they have to show to prove it's not vaporware is … a couple of original SC2 drawings? This is their proof that they've been working on this? This is utter bullshit - even the most barebones of kickstarter projects have something to show to prove they're making something. Paul and Fred only have old drawings. It's quite pathetic, really.

Again, they are under no obligation to ever make anything, but that doesn't mean someone else can just steal their game and sell it on GOG.

You don't think it's suspiciously convenient that they announce a supposed sequel just before Origins came out, as if they just wanted to spite Wardell and turn the fandom against him?

So your theory is that they were trying to trick Wardell into suing them so they could be forced to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend legal rights to a game they've been openly distributing unchallenged for 17 years?

 

[Nickolaidas]

It was about a year before, actually, and again, it followed lengthy talks that demonstrated a mutual understanding of what IP belonged to whom.


Does this mean the IP is up for grabs? The open-source UQM project is basis enough for their continued stewardship of that IP.


Again, they are under no obligation to ever make anything, but that doesn't mean someone else can just steal their game and sell it on GOG.


So your theory is that they were trying to trick Wardell into suing them?

I never said the IP is not theirs. Nor did I say that Wardell didn't force himself into a corner. The SC universe belongs to them. Anyone who looks at the back of the SC1 and SC2 covers can clearly read how the game announces them. Wardell can say anything he wants, the IP is theirs (Paul and Fred's) - except for the name *itself*.

I'm saying two things: A) There is NO Ghosts of the Precursors - it's vaporware, and B) they wanted to turn the SC fandom away from Wardell, so that he can die alone on the top of his hill. Or in order to appear as poor victims in the eyes of the fans ("Oh, look at us!! We want to make the game you always wanted us to make, but that bad, bad person Wardell isn't letting us!! Make sure to harass the asshole on twitter!!")

 

[HyGogg]

I'm saying two things: A) There is NO Ghosts of the Precursors - it's vaporware, and B) they wanted to turn the SC fandom away from Wardell, so that he can die alone on the top of his hill.

A) is certainly true, at least as of right now, although the legal battles give them a pretty good excuse. I would also think that the amount they've invested into legal defense might be a pretty good incentive to actually try to make that back.

B) is dubious. They were perfectly amicable with Wardell at the point Ghosts was announced (again, a year before SCO, not weeks), and it wasn't until Wardell started selling SC2 on GOG and declaring he owned their IP that things soured.

 

[Nickolaidas]

A) is certainly true, at least as of right now, although the legal battles give them a pretty good excuse. I would also think that the amount they've invested into legal defense might be a pretty good incentive to actually try to make that back.

B) is dubious. They were perfectly amicable with Wardell up until the point Wardell started selling SC2 on GOG and declaring he owned their IP, and this was AFTER the announcement of Ghosts.

Here's how I see it.

Wardell knew he only got the name, and cannot use the lore. He may have asked for permission by P&F but he gets dick.

His official reason for not using the lore is that he respects P&F's lore and doesn't want to alter or build upon it on any way.

The unofficial reason (I believe) is that he legally could not do so.

Wardell (as the development of Origins goes along) constantly busts P&F's balls to be involved in the project in order for the old fans to be reassured that what he's making is more or less of the same quality of the old games. P&F respectfully decline because they want nothing to do with this project (as with SC3). Wardell comes up with various PR excuses that make him appear as if P&F are giving him counsel on the project, while they do no such thing.

Eventually Wardell gets annoyed with P&F's reluctance to play ball, but keeps appearances with the fandom in order not to turn said fandom against him.

Now this is the part where I am not sure what really happens. Either P&F thought that Origins would be as different from SC2 as SC3 was and when they saw it wasn't, they decided to do something about it - I read somewhere that they asked Wardell to remove the melee as it was because it closely resembled the one of SC2 - or maybe it was that Wardell wanted permission to use the lore and they kept denying him … and he got angry and spiteful and decided to take them to court, hoping he could drain them financially through the lawyer game. Whatever words were exchanged in September / October of 2017, it was then that P&F decided to 'announce' Ghost of the Precursors to alienate the fandom with Wardell. Wardell pretends (my guess) that he's happy with the announcement of P&F in order to appear as the victim when the lawsuits will start flying in ("I'm not the bad guy!! Didn't you see how happy I was when they announced Ghosts?!?!")

I think that if P&F had agreed to appear even as mere consultants, Wardell wouldn't have acted as he did. It was their denial that pissed him off (not that they didn't have any right to do so).

 

[HyGogg]

Here's how I see it.

Wardell knew he only got the name, and cannot use the lore. He may have asked for permission by P&F but he gets dick.

His official reason for not using the lore is that he respects P&F's lore and doesn't want to alter or build upon it on any way.

The unofficial reason (I believe) is that he legally could not do so.

Wardell (as the development of Origins goes along) constantly busts P&F's balls to be involved in the project in order for the old fans to be reassured that what he's making is more or less of the same quality of the old games. P&F respectfully decline because they want nothing to do with this project (as with SC3). Wardell comes up with various PR excuses that make him appear as if P&F are giving him counsel on the project, while they do no such thing.

Eventually Wardell gets annoyed with P&F's reluctance to play ball, but keeps appearances with the fandom in order not to turn said fandom against him.

Now this is the part where I am not sure what really happens. Either P&F thought that Origins would be as different from SC2 as SC3 was and when they saw it wasn't, they decided to do something about it - I read somewhere that they asked Wardell to remove the melee as it was because it closely resembled the one of SC2 - or maybe it was that Wardell wanted permission to use the lore and they kept denying him … and he got angry and spiteful and decided to take them to court, hoping he could drain them financially through the lawyer game. Whatever words were exchanged in September / October of 2017, it was then that P&F decided to 'announce' Ghost of the Precursors to alienate the fandom with Wardell. Wardell pretends (my guess) that he's happy with the announcement of P&F in order to appear as the victim when the lawsuits will start flying in ("I'm not the bad guy!! Didn't you see how happy I was when they announced Ghosts?!?!")

I think that if P&F had agreed to appear even as mere consultants, Wardell wouldn't have acted as he did. It was their denial that pissed him off (not that they didn't have any right to do so).

So Wardell wanted something that wasn't his, couldn't get it, so he abused the court system with a baseless lawsuit hoping that he could financially exhaust his opponent into giving him what he wanted.

This seems pretty consistent with how Wardell has always handled himself, but I don't see where it makes Paul and Fred the bad guys. Announcing Ghosts may have been more a way of publicly asserting IP rights than an earnest attempt at game development at the time they announced it, but given the situation it's difficult to frame that as petty or spiteful rather than simply savvy and cautious, especially in light of what followed.

 

[Nickolaidas]

So Wardell wanted something that wasn't his, couldn't get it, so he abused the court system with a baseless lawsuit hoping that he could financially exhaust his opponent into giving him what he wanted.

This seems pretty consistent with how Wardell has always handled himself, but I don't see where it makes Paul and Fred the bad guys.

Not bad guys per se, but I *do* believe they 'used' their reputation and the deep craving the fans had for a sequel to help them appear like victims and make Wardell look a lot worse than he actually is.

I mean what situation makes Wardell look like more of an asshole?

A) Wardell wants all of the SC IP (name, lore, everything) and P&F are taken to court because of it. No one really cares though because (P&F's) SC is basically dead and isn't coming back.

B) Wardell wants all of the SC IP (name, lore, everything), attempts to stop P&F making a true sequel to SC II (which is every SC fan's wet dream) and endangers the future of a *true* SC game and ALSO takes P&F to court to make sure they'll never make a sequel.

Doesn't B) put him on a far worse light? So, P&F cleverly use a vaporware game to take Wardell from situation A) to situation B). That's pretty dickish, if you ask me. They're not 'bad guys', but they're certainly no good guys either.

 

[KonradLaw]

Both sides are assholes (Wardell started as the asshole here, but the DMCA stuff was utterly disgusting and makes P&F no better) and I'm not going to be crying about milionaires duking it out over petty nonsense in courtrooms.

Also.. I would love a real sequel to SC2, but it's never going to happen. P&F are completelly bullshiting fans about it.

 

[HyGogg]

Not bad guys per se, but I *do* believe they 'used' their reputation and the deep craving the fans had for a sequel to help them appear like victims and make Wardell look a lot worse than he actually is.

I mean what situation makes Wardell look like more of an asshole?

A) Wardell wants all of the SC IP (name, lore, everything) and P&F are taken to court because of it. No one really cares though because (P&F's) SC is basically dead and isn't coming back.

B) Wardell wants all of the SC IP (name, lore, everything), attempts to stop P&F making a true sequel to SC II (which is every SC fan's wet dream) and endangers the future of a *true* SC game and ALSO takes P&F to court to make sure they'll never make a sequel.

Doesn't B) put him on a far worse light? So, P&F cleverly use a vaporware game to take Wardell from situation A) to situation B). That's pretty dickish, if you ask me. They're not 'bad guys', but they're certainly no good guys either.

I don't think it was so much about turning the public against SCO as much as just reasserting their rights to the IP they hold. Which seems perfectly fair to me.

I don't think it takes that much work to make Wardell look like a dick in this situation.

Both sides are assholes (Wardell started as the asshole here, but the DMCA stuff was utterly disgusting and makes P&F no better) and I'm not going to be crying about milionaires duking it out over petty nonsense in courtrooms.

Wardell kind of forced their hand on the DMCA thing, though, by claiming it used UQM IP.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Storefronts typically honor a DMCA takedown request and then let the license holders fight it out.

In fact I believe that under the DMCA they HAVE to remove infriguing (infriguing content = any content someone claim, it does in no way means it's thers)... same goes for FaceBook, Youtube, etc.

 

[HyGogg]

In fact I believe that under the DMCA they HAVE to remove infriguing (infriguing content = any content someone claim, it does in no way means it's thers)... same goes for FaceBook, Youtube, etc.

It doesn't require it, but it certainly incentivizes it. They don't have to remove it, but failure to comply means losing the protections afforded service providers under the DMCA, meaning that they could potentially be held liable.

So if a provider is confident that a DMCA notice is without merit, they can ignore it. But if they ignore it and it's found to be legitimate they could be held liable for copyright violations.

 

[LordRaptor]

The problem, here is that Stardock is the one that fucking made it. They stated in public and in open fucking court that their game used the IP Paul and Fred claimed to own, a claim he hoped would form the basis of his suit to shut down their game. Then after the court points out that this means their game can be taken down unless they win their ridiculous and completely baseless case, they cry victim about how their game never used the UQM IP.

This is some Jussie Smollett shit here, man. They did this to themselves. They were the ones who filed the lawsuit against Fred and Paul. And then they want to cry because they are losing it.

what?
No dude, this is what was used in court as part of the DMCA takedown of the new Star Control game from storefronts.

Stardock own the name Star Control, and everything in that image isn't fucking legally protectable or you wouldn't have platform games not made by Nintendo, FPS games not made by Id.
Look at that image - that is what was filed AGAINST stardock.

Its fucking bullshit, and nobody should be backing those guys for trying to make things that aren't copyrightable be legally protected from similar games, or about 95% of the fucking games industry doesn't exist any more.

e:
Brad Wardell is a dick, but guess what?
So are P&F.
Their counter claim is pure fucking horseshit, and they're abusing the DMCA in a dangerous way to push their own agenda.
It doesn't fucking matter "who started it".

Like, they're actually trying to mislead the court about the musician who made the original music for SC, who wholly owns the copyright for the music he made, and who was contracted specifically to work on SC:O, as infringing on their work because its the same musician, who owns his own music.
How the fuck are you not seeing through their bullshit here?

 

[CrustyBritches]

All I know, is I paid for the founders edition and my planet name was approved but never put in the game. Put me on the witness stand....

I'm curious what you called it. Planet McPlanetson?

 

[ClanOfNone]

Yeesh, I had no idea what a mess this was. SC2 holds a spot in my top 5, it was/is an absolutely amazing game. I wasn't even aware Origins was in the works until it popped up out of nowhere on Steam. I bought it instantly, and found it to be a pretty good spiritual successor, it hit a lot of the right notes.
Had no idea people were fighting over the ip until I saw this thread.

 

[HyGogg]

what?
No dude, this is what was used in court as part of the DMCA takedown of the new Star Control game from storefronts.

It was not. It was used to explain the takedown to fans, but it's really not the whole story.

Two months after the announcement of Ghosts of the Precursors, Stardock announced their intent to incorporate SC1 and 2 lore (which they DO NOT OWN) into SCO. The way this was done was clumsy and admittedly superficial, essentially just adding a couple words and alien races from the old games into the existing game (which had no real connection to the lore otherwise). They then followed up by applying for trademarks on these races and terms that didn't belong to them, and this is where they seriously fucked themselves.

This essentially forces SCO into an IP conflict with the Reich/Ford IP, because it carries with it trademark rights that would render the old games subject to false designation. At this point Fred and Paul pretty much HAVE to file a DMCA on SCO in order to protect their rights to Ur-Quan Masters. But if Stardock left the game as it was originally planned, this never would have been a problem.

Stardock own the name Star Control, and everything in that image isn't fucking legally protectable or you wouldn't have platform games not made by Nintendo, FPS games not made by Id.
Look at that image - that is what was filed AGAINST stardock.

Some of it is trivial, but references to unique races and lore and novel terms are not, particularly when taken in the context of a product with so many other similarities. I think it's a mistake to focus on each individual item on that list rather than the sum total of all of it.

For instance, Great Giana Sisters won their lawsuit when Nintendo sued them, because simply looking and playing deliberately similar is not enough. But had their enemies been called "Goombas" and "Koopas", and tried to trademark the words "Goomba" and "Koopa," they surely would have lost. These details are important, and they're also cumulative.

And again, by hanging trademark filings on the game that conflict with existing copyrights, they really forced their hand. They didn't have to do that. Without those changes and those filings, Paul and Fred wouldn't have much case for a takedown. They made those changes on purpose to fuck Fred and Paul and it backfired. Like I said, even as it, it's pretty superficial, and Stardock could easily just change a couple words in the game and they'd be golden, but they don't want to do that, because then UQM wouldn't be in conflict.

I mean shit, with the rest of the lore in the game as loose as it is, you could MAYBE throw in a reference or two that were lean on details and argue that it's just homage, except again Stardock filed for a fucking trademark on them, so now they're arguing that these ARE actually important aspects of brand identity whose ownership needs to be litigated. THEY forced that.

 

[LordRaptor]

It was not. It was used to explain the takedown to fans, but it's really not the whole story.

They can't use specific names of races, but they can make a game that is a lot like Star Control and that is named Star Control.
That image is not about using specific names of races they do not have rights to.

It is attempting to overreach what is protected and declare that nobody can make a game "like" Star Control except them.
Which is absolute fucking bullshit.

e:
seriously dude, ignore your preconceptions about "who did what to who first".
Look at that image.
That is what they are legally arguing they control.
Its bullshit.

 

[HyGogg]

They can't use specific names of races, but they can make a game that is a lot like Star Control and that is named Star Control.

Yup, and that option was and is still wide open to them if they ever decide to pull the knife out of their leg.

That image is not about using specific names of races they do not have rights to.

It is attempting to overreach what is protected and declare that nobody can make a game "like" Star Control except them.
Which is absolute fucking bullshit.

e:
seriously dude, ignore your preconceptions about "who did what to who first".
Look at that image.
That is what they are legally arguing they control.
Its bullshit.

They aren't though. They are arguing that all of these factors, when taken together, strengthen the argument of an IP violation, NOT that any one of those things on their own is a violation or that they own those concepts. They simply add to the overall case. I think you're just not really understanding how the law is applied in copyright cases.

 

[LordRaptor]

I think you're just not really understanding how the law is applied in copyright cases.

No, they are attempting to make a "look and feel" case and putting forward the argument that the only things like Star Control that stardock "should" be allowed to make are elements that were in Star Control 3 and nothing else, and that they - and they alone - own all of the elements that comprised Star Control.

They are doing this to make their own argument look better, but it is massively overreaching, and it has huge knock on effects. Its a horseshit argument and it shouldn't be defended, and it definitely should not become citable case law to be used in any future cases.

 

[Nickolaidas]

I agree with Raptor 100%. With P&F's logic, Mortal Kombat and every other 2D fighting game besides Street Fighter should never have been made because the gameplay mechanics are really similar to Street Fighter (two characters facing each other on a background, using punches kicks and special moves like fire balls and grappling attacks. With health bars above them and a timer in the middle. Winning 2 out of 3 matches. Capcom should be suing and winning each and every one of these cases.

Fuck that. Copying other people's work is the best way to improve said work and elevate it. P&F have a weak case (as well as Wardell) and both sides are making ridiculous shit up in order to appear wounded and insulted by the other. P&F didn't want Wardell to use the lore; now they want him not to use anything that resembles Star Control 2. What's the point of making a Star Control game when it cannot have the fundamental characteristics of a Star Control game? I get not using the lore of SC1 and SC2 but they have no right to tell Wardell not to use the formula of the older games.

There are shameless rip-offs of other games all the time - P&F were the only ones so petty that they actually go the extra mile about it. It disgusts me.

And all that for a dead and buried IP that this generation doesn't even acknowledge. Ridiculous.

 

[HyGogg]

No, they are attempting to make a "look and feel" case and putting forward the argument that the only things like Star Control that stardock "should" be allowed to make are elements that were in Star Control 3 and nothing else, and that they - and they alone - own all of the elements that comprised Star Control.

They are doing this to make their own argument look better, but it is massively overreaching, and it has huge knock on effects. Its a horseshit argument and it shouldn't be defended, and it definitely should not become citable case law to be used in any future cases.

You can't just separate the look and feel arguments from the whole of the case as if they were being made on their own. These look and feel arguments are relevant to substantiating the crucial arguments that the trademarks hinge on.

Sure, IF those arguments weren't at the center of the whole thing, the rest wouldn't hold water, but that's not the case. It's not fair to act like this is just a look and feel argument that could apply to any similar game because it simply isn't so.

 

[Nickolaidas]

No, they are attempting to make a "look and feel" case and putting forward the argument that the only things like Star Control that stardock "should" be allowed to make are elements that were in Star Control 3 and nothing else, and that they - and they alone - own all of the elements that comprised Star Control.

They are doing this to make their own argument look better, but it is massively overreaching, and it has huge knock on effects. Its a horseshit argument and it shouldn't be defended, and it definitely should not become citable case law to be used in any future cases.

Judges can be true morons.

There is a person in Greece called Artemis Sorras, who came out of nowhere and claimed that he had 600 billion dollars given to him by the US for giving them technology to use spaceships without fuel. And he wanted to give that money to the Greek government in order to pay off the country's debt but they didn't want it because they are agents of the illuminati. He also claimed that Greece has 103 trillion euros to use as the people wish but the governments of the world try to hide this truth from the people in order to control them and keep them poor.

A member of the Greek parliament sued him for telling lies and attempting to deceive the Greek people and took him to court. The judge decided that there is no proof that Artemis Sorras doesn't have 600 billion dollars to spare and decided he was innocent. Then Sorras used this court decision as his personal proof that he had the money and attempted to convince the Greek people to vote his political organization to become the next government.

A couple of years later Artemis Sorras was convicted guilty for owing his once-upon-a-time best man 70.000 euro and was convicted to go to jail as well as pay off his best man. Sorras ran away and hid before the police could arrest him and stayed hidden for an entire year until the cops finally found him and put him in jail.

To this day, his supporters (around 5.000 to 10.000 people) believe that he is the chosen one, the one who has given them the insight and the money to make Greece the most powerful country in the world. We have elections in a few months and his followers will actually apply to become a government. Truly sad and hilarious at the same time.

And a judge decided that this guy wasn't a total fraud and a loon, and actually deemed him innocent of not lying about having 600 billion dollars in his bank account.

So the last thing we need is a judge who will decide that P&F can indeed claim ownership of the gameplay notions and mechanics that make Star Control Star Control, otherwise the legal precedent may create many unwelcome repercussions to future court cases.

 

[LordRaptor]

You can't just separate the look and feel arguments from the whole of the case as if they were being made on their own. These look and feel arguments are relevant to substantiating the crucial arguments that the trademarks hinge on.

But they aren't... the things that stardock do not own are almost completely seperate from the rest of the game.
If they don't own a particular race, they can't put that race in the game. If a race has certain legally protected elements, they can't use those legally protected elements - for example, the race name, and the race backstory.
But generic elements - like "they look like Greys", "they fly in flying saucers", "They are an ancient precursor race" - which nobody owns, and were taken from existing concepts in the first place - can be used, it doesn't matter if it annoys the owners of the 'real' IP that you can make a close-enough expy from non protected elements.

They don't own things that are not legally protected.
Sure, it makes their case easier and look better if they pretend that they do, but ultimately they don't.

If I made a superhero character called fantastic man, who can fly, is super strong and bullet proof, has laser vision and is a journalist as a day job, I can do that.
I can't call him Superman / Clark Kent, give him red cape / shorts / boots and blue leotard with a big S logo on the front, have him come from Krypton, be dating Lois Lane, have a pal called Jimmy Olsen, etc etc etc. Those are all protected elements.
If someone was saying "Hey, you can;t make that character! I own all of that!" then showing comics where Superman is flying, being strong, having laser vision, not dying to bullets and saying "see? see? he stole this, I own it!" and the judge agrees, then it is establishing ownership of concpets that nobody owns because nobody should own them; you can't say only DC are allowed to make stories about men who can fly, men who are strong, men who are bullet proof, men who are journalists as their day job.
You see that right?

Sure, IF those arguments weren't at the center of the whole thing, the rest wouldn't hold water, but that's not the case. It's not fair to act like this is just a look and feel argument that could apply to any similar game because it simply isn't so.

Legal precedent means something has been established as a fact, and future law suits should look to that as a guideline for ruling in future cases.
Fuck these dudes.
I fully understand its a lawyers job to make their case look as good as possible. But this is some straight bullshit that they should not be arguing, or be allowed to put forward.

 

[HyGogg]

But they aren't... the things that stardock do not own are almost completely seperate from the rest of the game.
If they don't own a particular race, they can't put that race in the game. If a race has certain legally protected elements, they can't use those legally protected elements - for example, the race name, and the race backstory.
But generic elements - like "they look like Greys", "they fly in flying saucers", "They are an ancient precursor race" - which nobody owns, and were taken from existing concepts in the first place - can be used, it doesn't matter if it annoys the owners of the 'real' IP that you can make a close-enough expy from non protected elements.

Again, they are not claiming they own those elements, or that they are all protected, and that's the thing you seem really hung up on.

The reason these arguments are being brought in is because they substantiate the other stuff.

So, take for example, if I made an open world crime game, and had a gang called the "Goombas" in it. I could argue that's not a trademark violation because the context is so different no one could reasonably confuse the two.

But if a game like Great Gianna Sisters had an enemy called a Goomba, that would be a flagrant violation, because the games are so similar in other ways. And such a complaint would have to spell out all of these similarities.

That doesn't mean that those similarities in and of themselves are illegal, but they substantiate the trademark case.

It's a complete misunderstanding of this case to frame it like PF trying say they own all of these broad concepts just because they might be relevant evidence to a narrower case.


Does that help make it clearer?

 

[LordRaptor]

Again, they are not claiming they own those elements, or that they are all protected, and that's the thing you seem really hung up on.

The reason these arguments are being brought in is because they substantiate the other stuff.

So, take for example, if I made an open world crime game, and had a gang called the "Goombas" in it. I could argue that's not a trademark violation because the context is so different no one could reasonably confuse the two.

But if a game like Great Gianna Sisters had an enemy called a Goomba, that would be a flagrant violation, because the games are so similar in other ways. And such a complaint would have to spell out all of these similarities.

That doesn't mean that those similarities in and of themselves are illegal, but they substantiate the trademark case.

It's a complete misunderstanding of this case to frame it like PF trying say they own all of these broad concepts just because they might be relevant evidence to a narrower case.


Does that help make it clearer?

If I own the rights to the name "Goomba" I can take you to court, and I can say "They aren't allowed to use the name Goomba".
Thats why people can't just stick Nike trainers in a videogame without permission from Nike.
And you can fight that in court - and if the judge rules you can't use the name Goomba, then there are varying degress of redress that can be made, which range from paying me for the rights to use the name, up to me forcing you to remove it completely, and to recall all copies that include the name and prevent them from being sold.
If the judge rules that the usage is different enough, then you might be allowed to continue to use the word Goomba, and tough shit me.
But its not my call to make, and it isn't your call to make - the judge will decide that.

What I can't do is say "Goombas are brown in colour and have black shoes, so you are not allowed to have enemies that have brown colouring with black shoes.
Goombas walk along the floor, so you are not allowed any enemies that walk along the floor.
Goombas can be jumped on, so you are not allowed to have the player be able to jump, because then they might be able to jump on an enemy.
Goombas give points when killed, so you are not allowed to give any rewards for killing enemies."
Because thats me being a petty asshole and hugely over-reaching as to what I actually own and implicitly declaring ownership of a whole bunch of shit that I absolutely do not have the rights to.

 

[HyGogg]

If I own the rights to the name "Goomba" I can take you to court, and I can say "They aren't allowed to use the name Goomba".
Thats why people can't just stick Nike trainers in a videogame without permission from Nike.
And you can fight that in court - and if the judge rules you can't use the name Goomba, then there are varying degress of redress that can be made, which range from paying me for the rights to use the name, up to me forcing you to remove it completely, and to recall all copies that include the name and prevent them from being sold.
If the judge rules that the usage is different enough, then you might be allowed to continue to use the word Goomba, and tough shit me.
But its not my call to make, and it isn't your call to make - the judge will decide that.

Right, so what I'm saying is that all of these "look and feel" arguments are context for that judgement. They help distinguish between parody and fair use and outright infringement.

Wardell posted that chart with a rather hysterical interpretation that they were a list of ALL the things he had to change, but this is a lie, because Paul and Fred had no real problem with the game up to the point they started infringing on lore and novel terms. I think the simplest proof that Paul and Fred have no real interest in taking down SCO or preventing clones in general is the simple fact that they offered a settlement that would basically let Stardock go forward with their game scott free on the condition that they drop their lawsuit and move on with their lives.

Their offer was rejected with a counter-offer by Stardock offering nothing and demanding PAul and Fred give up all their rights to not only Star Control but agree to not even make any similar games.

Which of these parties do you think is being more reasonable? Read the two offers. It's pretty clear Paul and Fred just want this to be over with.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The original creators should be lucky there is an existing SC game out there to keep some form of limelight on the series.

Let's be honest, nobody has given a shit about SC in over 25 years. Most modern gamers have probably never even heard of this series before which came out in the early 90s.

 

[LordRaptor]

Right, so what I'm saying is that all of these "look and feel" arguments are context for that judgement. They help distinguish between parody and fair use and outright infringement.

Wardell posted that chart with a rather hysterical interpretation that they were a list of ALL the things he had to change, but this is a lie, because Paul and Fred had no real problem with the game up to the point they started infringing on lore and novel terms. I think the simplest proof that Paul and Fred have no real interest in taking down SCO or preventing clones in general is the simple fact that they offered a settlement that would basically let Stardock go forward with their game scott free on the condition that they drop their lawsuit and move on with their lives.

Their offer was rejected with a counter-offer by Stardock offering nothing and demanding PAul and Fred give up all their rights to not only Star Control but agree to not even make any similar games.

Which of these parties do you think is being more reasonable? Read the two offers. It's pretty clear Paul and Fred just want this to be over with.

No, they're being dicks.
You can say that they're being dicks as a retaliatory measure for stardock being dicks first, but they're still being dicks.
You can say its their lawyers being dicks, but their lawyers represent their wishes, and they're still being dicks.
You can't point to a reasonable statement made over a year ago as proof that they're not intending to be dicks when their recent actions and statements are them being dicks.

They're being dicks, dude.

They filed a malicious and false DMCA takedown of SC:O.
I can say it was malicious because of the timing that impacted christmas sales, which are usually one of the biggest sales periods of the year.
I can say it was false because it has been overturned and SC:O is new reavailable on all storefronts that were DMCAd because SC:O does not contain anything that infringes on their property, despite their huge pver reaching claims as to what they own.

Look at the facts. Neither side look good.

e:
Go to their homepage.
Whats the first thing you see?
Them being dicks.

 

[Nickolaidas]

No, they're being dicks.
You can say that they're being dicks as a retaliatory measure for stardock being dicks first, but they're still being dicks.
You can say its their lawyers being dicks, but their lawyers represent their wishes, and they're still being dicks.
You can't point to a reasonable statement made over a year ago as proof that they're not intending to be dicks when their recent actions and statements are them being dicks.

They're being dicks, dude.

They filed a malicious and false DMCA takedown of SC:O.
I can say it was malicious because of the timing that impacted christmas sales, which are usually one of the biggest sales periods of the year.
I can say it was false because it has been overturned and SC:O is new reavailable on all storefronts that were DMCAd because SC:O does not contain anything that infringes on their property, despite their huge pver reaching claims as to what they own.

Look at the facts. Neither side look good.

e:
Go to their homepage.
Whats the first thing you see?
Them being dicks.

And they're literally asking their old fans to fund their dickness.

https://www.gofundme.com/help-fred-amp-paul-save-the-universe?member=333940

 

[HyGogg]

No, they're being dicks.
You can say that they're being dicks as a retaliatory measure for stardock being dicks first, but they're still being dicks.
You can say its their lawyers being dicks, but their lawyers represent their wishes, and they're still being dicks.
You can't point to a reasonable statement made over a year ago as proof that they're not intending to be dicks when their recent actions and statements are them being dicks.

They're being dicks, dude.

What more could they reasonably do than offer to shake hands and each do their own thing? There's no way to frame that offer as dickish.

That offer was made after Stardock sued them, and forced their hand, and all of that. They STILL offered to let bygones be bygones.

All Stardock has to do is walk away.

The takedown isn't malicious and false either. You said yourself they're using terms and lore that are owned by Paul and Fred. Until they remove the infringing material the takedown seems pretty legit to me.

 

[LordRaptor]

Until they remove the infringing material the takedown seems pretty legit to me.

They didn't remove shit, and the game is available for sale at all major storefronts.
The DMCA claim was bullshit, because SC:O doesn't contain anything that infringes on what P&F actually own.

It infringes a whole lot on things that they don't - like the idea of hyperspace, like having a radar, like being presented on a 2D map, like having the same musician who worked on the original SCs music in the game.
But they don't own those things.
that's literally my point.

 

[HyGogg]

They didn't remove shit, and the game is available for sale at all major storefronts.
The DMCA claim was bullshit, because SC:O doesn't contain anything that infringes on what P&F actually own.

It features the Arilou and Melnorme with virtually identical key traits to those races in SC2, a deliberate effort on the part of Stardock to create a copyright conflict with the old games. I think the Zoq too. And Precursors are referenced with identical backstory. Main ship being Vindicator again. Etc, etc.

And again, all of this stuff is cumulative. Like you can make a game with a character named Mario (cerrainly a common enough name), but if that character has a moustache and is a plumber and wears overalls, you're treading a dangerous line. And if Nintendo were to list those things as evidence of infringement it doesn't mean they are claiming ownership of the concept of overalls, it just means that these things all substantiate the claim when taken as a whole. Add up all these races, plot points, terminology, etc on top of a very similar style of game and it can rise to the level of substantial infringement or false designation.

Even with some of these things now patched out, their use or even announcement in promotional materials could mean liability for damages.

It infringes a whole lot on things that they don't - like the idea of hyperspace, like having a radar, like being presented on a 2D map, like having the same musician who worked on the original SCs music in the game.
But they don't own those things.
that's literally my point.

P&F aren't claiming to own any of those things, and I wish you would stop just repeating this. That interpretation is just a Brad Wardell fan-fiction, and it totally misunderstands the way IP law works.

Star Control is itself a spiritual successor to Starflight. They are not claiming to own a genre or these particular concepts. What they are saying is that using the Arilou and Melnorme in the context of a game with a lot of substantial similarities contravenes copyright infringement, and I think the court will also find that to be the case.

It's also debatable, by the way, if the sale of the Star Control trademark to Stardock was even valid in the first place. P&F were kind of "letting that go" when they were on good terms, but now that they're in court, the judge is going to have to look at the highly dubious 2007 application for renewal of the trademark by Atari, which used a screenshot from a hastily developed flash game (basically just let you move and shoot) created in a single weekend as its evidence for ongoing use of the trademark for commercial purposes -- something that probably never would have held up if actually challenged. That renewal has gone unchallenged up to this point, but is going to end up being central to whether or not Stardock bought much of anything beyond SC3 source code and assets. There's also the matter of a clause in the original contract that requires Paul and Fred to sign off before any rights are reassigned, so this might even be limited to an ownership stake without the actual ability to assign the rights to (and therefore use) those assets..

This is NOT a case based around a bunch of trivial and superficial similarities between the games. Stardock fucked up bad and did not properly vet any part of this deal. This is a crazy person deciding he knows more than his lawyers and burying himself. There are a LOT of hurdles Stardock is going to have to get over now, and I think they're going to lose.

It will be interesting to see if GOG and Steam find themselves liable for ignoring the takedown if this happens. They will certainly be vulnerable to that, but suing Steam may fall under the category of "more trouble than it's worth," especially when they'd likely want to maintain a happy relationship with them if and when their own game sees light.

 

[LordRaptor]

You really don't seem to be impartial on this.
I don't give a fuck about the backstory and prior fighting that happened before hand.
Because that doesn't excuse anything.

You want P&F to 'win'. Great.
The fact remains, if you go to their website right now, and you read their claims in their latest update, they are making an argument that SC:O shouldn't be "allowed" to use things that are not legally protected, and that nobody owns.

That's bullshit.

If someone made a game using every single element in that image I posted - the named concept of hyperspace, red colouring, streaking stars, a radar map, being towed if you run out of fuel, licenced music by the musician who owns that music, a 2D map, an autopilot feature, positional coordinates, and other aliens in hyperspace, and that did not use the name "Star Control" anywhere in the product, there would be no legal case.
None of those things - either individually or collectively - are copyrightable.
The fact that stardock purchased the name Star Control doesn't suddenly give them less rights for having done so.
Like, what the fuck dude? Just think about how fucked up that argument is.
"None of these are protected in a game not called Star Control, but because you bought the name Star Control, now they are".
Come the fuck on.

P&F aren't claiming to own any of those things, and I wish you would stop just repeating this. That interpretation is just a Brad Wardell fan-fiction, and it totally misunderstands the way IP law works.

That "interpretation" is what they are saying, in their own words, with their own choice of examples, with their own selected images, on their own website, in their most recent update.

Their claim is bullshit, and they're being dicks about it.

That is an independent statement that doesn't need me to support 'the other side' to make, or to absolve stardock of also being dicks.

 

[HyGogg]

You really don't seem to be impartial on this.
I don't give a fuck about the backstory and prior fighting that happened before hand.
Because that doesn't excuse anything.

You want P&F to 'win'. Great.

I don't want to see SCO taken off of digital storefronts, because that hurts fans and people that paid for the game. I just think that outcome becomes increasingly likely unless Stardock decides to settle.

The best possible outcome if they continue is that maybe Stardock only have to pay damages, the trademark is recognized as valid, and a version (perhaps with a few changes) of SCO can remain for sale. But the more they pursue this, the more they jeopardize that outcome.

The fact remains, if you go to their website right now, and you read their claims in their latest update, they are making an argument that SC:O shouldn't be "allowed" to use things that are not legally protected, and that nobody owns.

So again, if you actually read that post, they present this as ONE example of a similarity. They say "let’s compare the expression in a very limited part of the gameplay — interstellar travel." and these examples are limited only to that particular very small part of the game.

But Interstellar travel is of course one of MANY elements of SCO that have these sorts of overt similarities. This is how IP cases are made. See my Mario analogy above. There's a point at which a work crosses the line and becomes too similar. It isn't any one thing. In this case it may be hundreds of things.

If someone made a game using every single element in that image I posted - the named concept of hyperspace, red colouring, streaking stars, a radar map, being towed if you run out of fuel, licenced music by the musician who owns that music, a 2D map, an autopilot feature, positional coordinates, and other aliens in hyperspace, and that did not use the name "Star Control" anywhere in the product, there would be no legal case.

But of course that chart was just meant to examine a single element of the game (hyperspace), and the similarities beyond that number in the hundreds, right?

The fact that stardock purchased the name Star Control doesn't suddenly give them less rights for having done so.

1) They may not have actually legally purchased said name, though, since the person they bought it from owned it fraudulently.

2) Using the name actually does put additional pressure on them to maintain clarity that this game is not set in the existing SC fiction -- and instead they actually outright called it a prequel when promoting it, something that could be construed as false designation.

3) It's important to note that they are not applying this to "any game with any of these elements," just this particular one that has ALL of these elements together, along with many, many more not outlined in the chart, and there is a point at which the line is crossed.

Whether or not Stardock crossed that line is up tot he courts to decide, of course, but it's really silly to act like that chart by itself is the entirety of the argument rather than a narrow example of how one small part of the game is extremely similar.

 

[LordRaptor]

So again, if you actually read that post, they present this as ONE example of a similarity. They say "let’s compare the expression in a very limited part of the gameplay — interstellar travel." and these examples are limited only to that particular very small part of the game.

But Interstellar travel is of course one of MANY elements of SCO that have these sorts of overt similarities. This is how IP cases are made. See my Mario analogy above. There's a point at which a work crosses the line and becomes too similar. It isn't any one thing. In this case it may be hundreds of things.

Which is the argument that you claim they are not making - that they own all games that are "substantively similar" to Star Control and therefore have control over allowing any such game.
Which they fucking don't.

Apex Legends is substantively similar to PUBG Battlegrounds.
Saints Row is substantively similar to Grand Theft Auto.
Axiom Verge is substantively similar to Super Metroid
Fighters History is substantively similar to Street Fighter
Great Gianna Sisters is substantively similar to Super Mario Bros

they are overreaching and trying to exert control and ownership over things that they don't fucking own.
fuck them, fuck their argument, and fuck their attempt to do this.

They might really really really fucking hate that the things that they do own do not constitute a right to stop someone else making a Star Control-a-like, but they do not have the legal means to prevent that, based on any current interpretations of IP law.

Whether Stardock actually own the name Star Control is an entirely different legal argument, but if thats what they want to choose to go with in this stupid fucking legal dick measuring contest, thats not as offsenove to me as these bullshit claims are. But waiting until a product has beenr eleased after years of development before saying "actually, we own that" out of the blue opens them to a countersuit for tortuous interference at the very least.