Support NeoGAF

[HyGogg]

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.

In legal terms, "substantially similar" means "similar enough that it's a copyright violation," so yes, they would by definition own such a work (or at least enough of it to shut it down).

Whether or not these things cumulatively constitute substantial similarity is for the courts to decide, of course.

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

But again, that's not how I'm using the term.

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.

I think, with regards to thinks like interface elements, control conventions, etc, they probably have no case -- these things are usually covered only by patent, not copyright, and haven't been tested well even in that capacity. So I sort of agree with you that these things aren't really relevant to the copyright claims, though they could be relevant if P&F were bringing a trademark case because they could be construed as a sort of "brand identity." But that's not the case, so I don't really think they're going to hold up.

But the story stuff is probably going to be very damning, especially in light of them billing it as a prequel early on. Using races, names, etc, alongside extremely similar lore is probably going to be very very damning.

This is the first time a videogame copyright case is being litigated on story, so it might be better to look at movie and literary precedent than something like Fighter's History that was just based on gameplay convention and superficial look and feel stuff. This case is very different than those.

 

[LordRaptor]

In legal terms, "substantially similar" means "similar enough that it's a copyright violation," so yes, they would by definition own such a work (or at least enough of it to shut it down).

But none of those things in their example are copyrightable, so being "substantively similar" doesn't mean shit.
They are attempting to claim ownership of things that are not copyrightable.

That is overreach. That is almost the textbook definition of overreach.

Its bullshit. They're being dicks.

 

[HyGogg]

But none of those things in their example are copyrightable, so being "substantively similar" doesn't mean shit.
They are attempting to claim ownership of things that are not copyrightable.

Every infringing work can be broken down into components which, by themselves, are not infringing. You with me?

So I have a game called Ultra Mario World. Nintendo sues me and provides as evidence:

*Both games are side scrolling platformers
*Both games feature mushrooms as power ups
*Characters are both named Mario
*Characters travel through pipes
*Characters have mustaches
*Characters wear overalls
*Characters rescue a princess

Now, none of those things are individually copyrightable. Nintendo doesn't own the name Mario, or the concept of a mustache. But collectively they constitute infringement. This is the way IP cases are built. If there are enough of these similarities then it becomes a copyright violation.


You keep hammering this point that none of these things are copyrightable by themselves, but no one is claiming they are. Can you at least acknowledge that, whether or not you think they collectively meet the necessary burden, their individual consideration is just not relevant? That's really just a non-point and it's frustrating that you keep falling back on it like you don't understand the concept.

You can certainly argue that all the similarities mentioned and unmentioned collectively still don't amount to infringement, and that's what the courts will be debating. There's room to debate that. But the point you keep making about these individual items not being copyrightable is just COMPLETELY missing the point and we're having trouble getting anywhere in this conversation because you won't let this false narrative go.

 

[LordRaptor]

Now, none of those things are individually copyrightable. Nintendo doesn't own the name Mario, or the concept of a mustache. But collectively they constitute infringement. This is the way IP cases are built. If there are enough of these similarities then it becomes a copyright violation.


You keep hammering this point that none of these things are copyrightable by themselves, but no one is claiming they are. Can you at least acknowledge that, whether or not you think they collectively meet the necessary burden, their individual consideration is just not relevant? That's really just a non-point and it's frustrating that you keep falling back on it like you don't understand the concept.

I keep going back to it, because you keep asserting that if you lump enough non-copyrightable things together then it suddenly transcends to become copyrightable, and thats not true.
In the example you gave, Nintendo would have a suit, and it would solely be on the name Mario who is trademarked. Change that name, and they couldn't do shit.

Thats whats happening here.

You cant use copyright law on distinctiveness to measure things that are not copyrightable.

Frontier can't sue Atari for releasing a shitty game called Roller Coaster Tycoon even though they worked on RCT3 and much of the game is derived from the work they did, and Frontier can't rename Planet Coaster to be called Roller Coaster Tycoon Planet, because they don't have the legal right to use the name Roller Coaster Tycoon.

If Stardock had released SC:O - exactly as it is right now - but it had been called Galactic Civilizations: Origins, P&F would have zero fucking grounds for any lawsuit, because nothing in SC:O is using any IP other than the name Star Control, which was purchased by them.
So why does the law change when they do use a name that they purchased for commercial use?
It doesn't.

They are attempting to claim ownership of all games like Star Control, based on their work on the original Star Control. Work that is not legally protected, and that they do not have ownership of.
I am not putting words into their mouths here; this is literally the basis of their DMCA;

So, why do we contend that Star Control: Origins is substantially similar to and/or derivative of our copyrighted game, Star Control II?

You cannot copyright a game.
You cannot block derivations of a game - ie Clone Games - because you can't copyright a game.
You cannot sue for likeness of a game, because, again, you cannot copyright a game.

Elements of a game can be copyrighted but they are not seeking to have specific elements removed; they are seeking to block the game in its entirety as a derivative work of a copyright that they own, but they do not own that copyright, because the game cannot be copyrighted.

Its a bullshit claim, and they're being dicks for making it.
And they're being double dicks because if they manage to push this through as precedent, they fuck up a whole lot of other things in the industry.

 

[HyGogg]

I keep going back to it, because you keep asserting that if you lump enough non-copyrightable things together then it suddenly transcends to become copyrightable, and thats not true.
In the example you gave, Nintendo would have a suit, and it would solely be on the name Mario who is trademarked. Change that name, and they couldn't do shit.

This is not really accurate though.

1) Although they hold a trademark, Nintendo does not own the name Mario outright, as it's a common name in many latin languages. So the other factors are, indeed relevant to substantiating the claim that a particular use infringing. This is part of why I chose this example as opposed to, say, Metroid which is a novel term.

2) There are reams of cases where people will change the names around but it's clear that they characters are near identical. Changing any one thing in my example might not be enough (though the more you change the weaker Nintendo's case gets).

Protections for parody can sometimes help, but SCO would probably have a hard time convincing a judge that their work is meant as parody.

You cannot copyright a game.
You cannot block derivations of a game - ie Clone Games - because you can't copyright a game.
You cannot sue for likeness of a game, because, again, you cannot copyright a game.

Come on dude. Every fucking game on your shelf has a copyright notice on the box. You can't start making shit up like this.

Now it's true that a game's copyright doesn't cover functional aspects of a game, like UI, gameplay, etc (usually falling more into the domain of patents), but games are still subject to the exact same protections of copyright as other media, which means the story, characters, art, music, etc are all part of the copyrighted work, and these things don't have to be "word for word" or "pixel for pixel" to be considered copies.

And if you've ever followed any such cases in those media, they seldom come down to being word for word copies, instead hinging on whether or not the works are substantially similar, and whether or not they fall into the protections of fair use and parody.

Elements of a game can be copyrighted but they are not seeking to have specific elements removed; they are seeking to block the game in its entirety as a derivative work of a copyright that they own, but they do not own that copyright, because the game cannot be copyrighted.

But we already proved this false because Reiche and Ford's settlement offer explicitly spells it out. They do not consider EVERYTHING in the game to be a violation and they have repeatedly said they are okay with SCO being published if the infringing elements are removed. I find this very reasonable, personally, to the point where I don't understand what else you could reasonably expect of them.

 

[HyGogg]

@ LordRaptor

Another thing I want to touch on is when you said that using the trademark doesn't give them less rights, and I said it kind of does. I want to explain that better.

Back in the 80s, Harlan Ellison sued for a writing credit on The Terminator based on two epidsodes of The Other Limits he wrote called Soldier and Demon with a Glass Hand.. These stories feature no identical character names, just some concepts and plot points and a very similar opening scene. The case did not go to court, as the studio chose to settle it, but Ellison was awarded credit and compensation.

In most similar cases the studio would have fought this, and in most similar cases they'd have probably won, except for one key problem: Cameron gave an interview (which went unplublished, but which could still be used as evidence) in which he said "I got the idea for the movie by ripping off a couple Outer Limits episodes," thus establishing that these similarities were not coincidental. Because of this, the studio considered it better to settle the case.

So it can actually make a big difference that someone took something directly rather than that it just happens to be similar. In the case of SC:O, it's almost impossible to argue that these elements are anything other than a deliberate attempt to mimic P&F's game. They can't claim ignorance here, the game is named Star Control and they had lengthy talks about what they do and don't own. So this could be really thorny for them as a result.

 

[LordRaptor]

But we already proved this false because Reiche and Ford's settlement offer explicitly spells it out. They do not consider EVERYTHING in the game to be a violation and they have repeatedly said they are okay with SCO being published if the infringing elements are removed. I find this very reasonable, personally, to the point where I don't understand what else you could reasonably expect of them.

Their "settlement offer" is that Stardock can't make a game that is in any way like Star Control 1 or 2, but they are 'allowed' to use the elements of Star Control 3 that are not in SC1 or 2.
That's literally declaring an ownership of the totality of Star Control 1 and 2, and attempting to act like gatekeepers to prevent any clone games existing at their whim.
They do not have the right to prevent games like Star Control, and they do not have the authority to permit people to make games like Star Control.

Fuck that, and fuck them, and if you think that's 'reasonable' I don't know what to say. You seem invested in their bullshit.

Of course SC:O is an "attempt to mimic" Star Control. That's literally why they bought the name. They wanted to make a game like Star Control.
Making a game like Star Control is not legally obstructed, because the essence of what makes a game a game is not legally protected.
Thats why Player Unknown can't shut down Fortnite / CoD / Apex Legends.
Thats why Notch can't shut down DayZ / Rust / Subnautica.
Thats why Adam Atomic can't shut down Temple Run / Subway Surfers / Super Mario Run.

The games industry would be worse off if they could.

 

[HyGogg]

Their "settlement offer" is that Stardock can't make a game that is in any way like Star Control 1 or 2, but they are 'allowed' to use the elements of Star Control 3 that are not in SC1 or 2.

That's literally declaring an ownership of the totality of Star Control 1 and 2, and attempting to act like gatekeepers to prevent any clone games existing at their whim.

That is not what the settlement says. It says that Stardock will not use the Reiche IP. The settlement makes absolutely no effort to redefine that IP as anything other than the uniquely copyrighted elements that have always been considered their IP, and which were mutually agreed upon by both parties up until early 2018.

This idea that they are claiming "ownership" of every similarity they've pointed out is a BULLSHIT, and you have not given a single piece of evidence to support this interpretation.

They do not have the right to prevent games like Star Control, and they do not have the authority to permit people to make games like Star Control.

They aren't, and in fact were supportive of SCO up until Stardock announced their intent to try to co-opt their IP. They were also supportive of Starflight 3's Kickstarter. The claim you are making is completely at odds with the facts of the case. You are ignoring all of the very legitimate reasons for this takedown and making it about something else despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Stardock's counter-offer, however, did seek to block Reiche and Ford from developing not only Ghosts but "any similar game." They are the only ones who have made such demands.

Fuck that, and fuck them, and if you think that's 'reasonable' I don't know what to say. You seem invested in their bullshit.

Dude, this is made up. You are mad about something that NEVER HAPPENED, based on the rantings of a fucking mental patient. This is not real.

Of course SC:O is an "attempt to mimic" Star Control. That's literally why they bought the name. They wanted to make a game like Star Control.
Making a game like Star Control is not legally obstructed, because the essence of what makes a game a game is not legally protected.
Thats why Player Unknown can't shut down Fortnite / CoD / Apex Legends.
Thats why Notch can't shut down DayZ / Rust / Subnautica.
Thats why Adam Atomic can't shut down Temple Run / Subway Surfers / Super Mario Run.

The games industry would be worse off if they could.

This is COMPLETELY unlike those cases, because it doesn't hinge on gameplay arguments, it's based on their infringing of the game's fiction, which is completely protected in the same way a book is protected.

Comparing this to lawsuits over game mechanics and rules is foolish, because this case doesn't hinge on those. You can't copyright game rules, gameplay, functional elements of a game, but you damn sure can copyright characters, story, lore, etc, and if you knowingly rip that off and market your product as a fucking prequel without the rights, you're going to be very vulnerable in a lawsuit.

 

[LordRaptor]

That is not what the settlement says. It says that Stardock will not use the Reiche IP. The settlement makes absolutely no effort to redefine that IP as anything other than the uniquely copyrighted elements that have always been considered their IP, and which were mutually agreed upon by both parties up until early 2018.

This idea that they are claiming "ownership" of every similarity they've pointed out is a BULLSHIT, and you have not given a single piece of evidence to support this interpretation.
...
Dude, this is made up. You are mad about something that NEVER HAPPENED, based on the rantings of a fucking mental patient. This is not real.

Bro, its their fucking statement, in their own fucking words, on their own fucking website.
You keep telling me that "they're not saying that!", when they are literally saying that - again - in their own fucking words, on their own fucking website.

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

So, why do we contend that Star Control: Origins is substantially similar to and/or derivative of our copyrighted game, Star Control II? Besides the evidence of infringement identified in our most recent filings with the court, let’s compare the expression in a very limited part of the gameplay — interstellar travel. One would presume that Stardock would either make entirely new gameplay for Origins or base it upon the original parts of SC3. Let’s check that out…

"We own SC1 & 2 copyrights, but not SC3, so stardock are allowed to make a game using the parts of SC3 that we do not own, not anything relating to SC1 or 2 which we do"
They don't have those rights.
They don't have that authority over clone games. It doesn;t fucking matter how obviously a clone game SC:O is.

Fuck them.

e:
Do you know why Stardock didn't buy "The right to make gameplay similar to SC1 or 2" in an auction?
Because you can't fucking buy that right. Nobody owns that right.

The makers of Spyro should be well fucking aware of this given how heavily it borrows from Super Mario 64 and their ActiBlizz lawyers on standby to vet it.

 

[daveonezero]

Did they use the code, art, assets, marketing, and other actual components of the old game? I doubt it.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Stardock's counter-offer, however, did seek to block Reiche and Ford from developing not only Ghosts but "any similar game." They are the only ones who have made such demands.

And that's where this whole fiasco stopped being a legal case and turned into a literal pissing contest.

 

[LordRaptor]

Did they use the code, art, assets, marketing, and other actual components of the old game? I doubt it.

AFAICS they had plans to use some of the original races from SC1+2 as DLC, and there are code stubs to allow that using the names of races they absolutely do not have any right to use.
But the game as is doesn;t infringe on anything generally considered to be copyrightable, unless the ownership of the name Star Control is in fact invalid, in which case they're using a trademark they have no right to.

 

[Nickolaidas]

AFAICS they had plans to use some of the original races from SC1+2 as DLC, and there are code stubs to allow that using the names of races they absolutely do not have any right to use.
But the game as is doesn;t infringe on anything generally considered to be copyrightable, unless the ownership of the name Star Control is in fact invalid, in which case they're using a trademark they have no right to.

They do mention the Zoq Fot Pik (I think) at some point.
There was an alien which had an Ur-Quan dreadnaught miniature in his background (not sure if they kept it in the final game).

These of course are miniscule things and only a petty owner of said material would be up in arms for that. P&F are extremely touchy about their IP, despite no one giving a flying fuck for almost two decades now.

 

[ClanOfNone]

Hey, I love this IP! For purely selfish reasons, I want PnF to win so I can see my true successor to SC2 decades later.
But, having bought and played SC:O before I was even aware that PnF were still around, I do think SC:O should be relisted. It's a good game, the closest facsimile i have played to SC2 since, well, SC2.
It's a pissing contest for sure at this point, and that's a shame cause I think there is room for both.

 

[LordRaptor]

I do think SC:O should be relisted.

It has been, the DMCA didn't last very long.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Hey, I love this IP! For purely selfish reasons, I want PnF to win so I can see my true successor to SC2 decades later.
But, having bought and played SC:O before I was even aware that PnF were still around, I do think SC:O should be relisted. It's a good game, the closest facsimile i have played to SC2 since, well, SC2.
It's a pissing contest for sure at this point, and that's a shame cause I think there is room for both.

I love it, too. SC2 is one of my all-time faves, although I admit it didn't age well. Still miles better in lore and characterization than that bullcrap Reaper rip-off in Mass Effect, though.

But we won't see a sequel from P&F. Ghosts is a hoax. It's not happening.

 

[ClanOfNone]

It was a seminal work. It's writing and humor still really haven't been topped in my mind. I would disagree that hasn't aged well, but my nostalgia produces a huge bias so....

If Ghosts isn't even an intended product than that makes this pissing contest seem even dumber than normal. Did they have anything to show besides concept stuff? Shit, whatever happened to the fan made sequel in the og engine?

 

[HyGogg]

"We own SC1 & 2 copyrights, but not SC3, so stardock are allowed to make a game using the parts of SC3 that we do not own, not anything relating to SC1 or 2 which we do"
They don't have those rights.

They don't have which rights specifically? Are you claiming they have no rights to any aspect of SC1 and 2 at all, or simply that these rights don't apply to functional aspects of the game?

The latter I agree with, but I don't think is material to the case. The former makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'll need you to explain.

They don't have that authority over clone games. It doesn;t fucking matter how obviously a clone game SC:O is.

The problem is not that it's copying gameplay conventions, it's that it's deliberately trying to pass itself off as a game set in the same universe and fiction as Star Control 1 and 2, which is not legal.

To say SC:O is simply a "clone" in the broad sense of your other examples, and not that it's trying to pass itself off as a proper part of the series seems really dishonest to me. It's very obviously trying to convince fans that it's a prequel with some official connection to the classic games. Do you get why those things are different?

 

[LordRaptor]

They don't have which rights specifically? Are you claiming they have no rights to any aspect of SC1 and 2 at all, or simply that these rights don't apply to functional aspects of the game?

The latter I agree with, but I don't think is material to the case. The former makes absolutely no sense to me, and I'll need you to explain.


The problem is not that it's copying gameplay conventions, it's that it's deliberately trying to pass itself off as a game set in the same universe and fiction as Star Control 1 and 2, which is not legal.

To say SC:O is simply a "clone" in the broad sense of your other examples, and not that it's trying to pass itself off as a proper part of the series seems really dishonest to me. It's very obviously trying to convince fans that it's a prequel with some official connection to the classic games. Do you get why those things are different?

The name Star Control is just a thing to gain initial attention. It holds no more value than that - and it doesn't even hold that much value, given people are driving around in cars that cost more than it did.
There is no expectation that it "is trying to pass itself off" or that it is "the same universe" or "the same fiction".
Ever played a Final Fantasy?

This is not a lawsuit to try and protect consumers from being sold an inferior product by misleading them as to what it is. Nobody is buying SC:O and going "OH MAN, BUT THE STORIES DIFFERENT NOW!".
Most people buying a game buy a game because they want to play a game. The specific names of characters or races, the specific copyrightable elements of narrative or of character design... these are things most people do not particularly give a fuck about. They are icing on a cake. They are not the cake.
If those were things people particularly gave a shit about, then this lawsuit would be unnecessary, because the people who give a shit specifically about a specifically particular named race with a specifically particular lore that is copyrighted would wait for a game that has those specific elements.

Lets take a much better known licence; say you bought the rights to use the name "Star Trek" in videogames.
You don't have the rights to use Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Vulcans, any of the named races that exist, any of their ship designs, or any of the lore or backstory established in the films or TV shows.
Could you make a Star Trek game that would be enjoyable to fans of the franchise, but that contains none of those elements? Of course you fucking could. They're not buying it for those elements.
If you made a good game, people would buy it for being a good game. they might say "Oh man, I wish klingons were in this!" but they wouldn't be tricked into buying it looking forward to learning more klingon backstory, and be bitterly disappointed that its 'just' a good game on its own merits.

Its a lawsuit to try and gain legal ownership of all games that are like Star Control, even if that control is solely for the purpose of stopping only stardock from making a clone game and not going after anyone else.

They don't have that right though, and they shouldn't have that right, because I don't care how benevolent you think they might be, or how they will only block bad people from making games but allow good people to make games, making clone games is legally allowed, and much of the games industry is built entirely upon iterative clones.

Remove that ability, and you might as well just say "only the very biggest and richest developers can make games from now on", because they're the ones with decades of IP gathering dust in a cupboard and high priced lawyers who can come out and say some game from the 80s "look and feel" is close enough to stop anything vaguely similar from being made.

 

[HyGogg]

The name Star Control is just a thing to gain initial attention. It holds no more value than that - and it doesn't even hold that much value, given people are driving around in cars that cost more than it did.
There is no expectation that it "is trying to pass itself off" or that it is "the same universe" or "the same fiction".
Ever played a Final Fantasy?

But this isn't like that at all. They literally told people it was a prequel and incorporated direct story elements from the old games.

Nobody is buying SC:O and going "OH MAN, BUT THE STORIES DIFFERENT NOW!".

Well yeah, because they're not...

The specific names of characters or races, the specific copyrightable elements of narrative or of character design... these are things most people do not particularly give a fuck about.

Then they should probably remove them, right?

Lets take a much better known licence; say you bought the rights to use the name "Star Trek" in videogames.
You don't have the rights to use Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Vulcans, any of the named races that exist, any of their ship designs, or any of the lore or backstory established in the films or TV shows.

Which side are you even arguing? Are you missing the part where SCO added races from the classic games and tons of story elements that parallel those in the classic games and could be seen as efforts to bring the game into the continuity? If I owned the Star Trek trademark and nothing else do you think I could call my ship The Enterprise, and have a race of pointy eared super logical beings, a race.of war-like beings with big heads, and have them follow the "prime directive" and not expect to be sued?

You seem to be arguing against yourself here or at least completely unaware of the context of this dispute, which is hard to believe given the number of posts we've had going back and forth.

 

[LordRaptor]

But this isn't like that at all. They literally told people it was a prequel and incorporated direct story elements from the old games.

What are these "direct story elements" that SC:O contains?

Then they should probably remove them, right?

What are the things they should remove?

Which side are you even arguing?

You seem to be under the impression that SC:O is using a ton of stuff from SC1 and 2.
It isn't.
Its using a bunch of new races. Its using a bunch of new plotlines. Its structural similarities are entirely gameplay related, and nobody can copyright gameplay.
Thats why P&F are making a "look and feel" case. Because SC:O contains nothing that they own. That's why they're trying to claim it as a "derivative" work, because it is a game similar to SC.

I'm arguing fuck them for trying to do that.

 

[HyGogg]

What are these "direct story elements" that SC:O contains?

It makes deliberate use of a lot of terms, plot points, and iconography from the past games.

It was called a prequel in a blog post discussing the game in advance of release.

The Arilou are in it. They removed their name after the lawsuit escalated, but they didn't even rename them, they're still there, still have exactly the same back story and appearance, and any person who played the previous games would understand them to be the same.

The ship has the same name.

Frungy is referenced.

The Precursors are referenced by name, again with identical back story.

Technology is all referenced by the same names, and explained in identical ways that infringe on the series novel fiction.

And so on, and so on. I've heard the Melnorme and Zoq are in it as well.

You seem to be under the impression that SC:O is using a ton of stuff from SC1 and 2.
It isn't.
Its using a bunch of new races. Its using a bunch of new plotlines. Its structural similarities are entirely gameplay related, and nobody can copyright gameplay.
Thats why P&F are making a "look and feel" case. Because SC:O contains nothing that they own. That's why they're trying to claim it as a "derivative" work, because it is a game similar to SC.

I'm arguing fuck them for trying to do that.

They really aren't though.

Here's the thing you don't seem to acknowledge: The chart on P&F's site was not intended as a list of things they own, it was designed to explain the difference between simply calling something hyperspace and outright plagiarizing a specific fiction of hyperspace in order to align your product with an existing one that you don't own. It is quite the opposite of what you claim it to be. It is saying that using a word or two or being in the same genre is fine, but that this clearly goes far past that, and I think that's true.

SCO is infringing on the Reiche IP, because they claim to own the IP, and they've actually used that to file for trademarks that conflict with the old games. There's no ambiguity about what they're doing. The WHOLE GAME isn't in conflict but certain parts are, and that's by design.

 

[Nickolaidas]

This is not a lawsuit to try and protect consumers from being sold an inferior product by misleading them as to what it is. Nobody is buying SC:O and going "OH MAN, BUT THE STORIES DIFFERENT NOW!".
Most people buying a game buy a game because they want to play a game. The specific names of characters or races, the specific copyrightable elements of narrative or of character design... these are things most people do not particularly give a fuck about. They are icing on a cake. They are not the cake.

I disagree on this one. You can bet that almost all SC fans care about the lore a LOT more than they care about the gameplay. True, the gamers who haven't heard of those games won't care, but the old fans *do* care.

Lets take a much better known licence; say you bought the rights to use the name "Star Trek" in videogames.
You don't have the rights to use Klingons, Cardassians, Romulans, Vulcans, any of the named races that exist, any of their ship designs, or any of the lore or backstory established in the films or TV shows.
Could you make a Star Trek game that would be enjoyable to fans of the franchise, but that contains none of those elements? Of course you fucking could. They're not buying it for those elements.
If you made a good game.

Again, disagree. The game might turn out good, but the majority of the Star Trek fandom will be pissed if no known characters, races or ship designs are in the game.

I mean, what's the point of a video game called Spider-Man when it doesn't have Parker/Morales, Aunt May/Mary Jane and any known villain from Spidey's rogue gallery? Do you think the fandom would be all like, "aw shucks, it doesn't have any character we know - who cares? Game plays awesome!"

Licensed games don't work like that.

Take the we-know-nothing-about Square Avengers game that is in development. There are MANY people commenting on various sites that if the game doesn't have the canon characters as playable and only has you controlling a custom-made character, they won't be interested.

Its a lawsuit to try and gain legal ownership of all games that are like Star Control, even if that control is solely for the purpose of stopping only stardock from making a clone game and not going after anyone else.

They don't have that right though, and they shouldn't have that right, because I don't care how benevolent you think they might be, or how they will only block bad people from making games but allow good people to make games, making clone games is legally allowed, and much of the games industry is built entirely upon iterative clones.

Remove that ability, and you might as well just say "only the very biggest and richest developers can make games from now on", because they're the ones with decades of IP gathering dust in a cupboard and high priced lawyers who can come out and say some game from the 80s "look and feel" is close enough to stop anything vaguely similar from being made.

On that, we agree 100%.

 

[LordRaptor]

The WHOLE GAME isn't in conflict but certain parts are, and that's by design.

Again; what are the specific parts that are infringing that should be removed?
The names of technologies, the concept of precursors - these are not copyrightable things. Any more than "A school where people learn magic" is a copyrightable aspect of Harry Potter.
You cannot infringe on non-copyrightable things.

They did not issue a DMCA because of copyrightable elements of a whole, and their statement declaring what they think they own does not cite copyrightable elements.
It declares the entire game to be infringing because it is a game like Star Control.

that is bulllllllllshit.
They had 25 fucking years to sort out their trademarks and copyrights, if they cared that much about them.

There is no doubt that stardock wanted to use races they did not have the right to use.
there is no doubt they planned to use races they did not have the right to use.
There is no doubt they tried to strongarm ownership of races they wanted to use to try and force the rights to use them

That doesn't matter, because they didn't use them in the end product.

Thats why the DMCA was bullshit (and has obviously been revoked) and why their attempts to claim ownership of a genre are also bullshit.

Again, disagree. The game might turn out good, but the majority of the Star Trek fandom will be pissed if no known characters, races or ship designs are in the game.

Its getting into specifics of a hypothetical, but the newer Star Trek movies and the latest TV show - as their nature of 'reboots' - eschew much of what was already established as "star trek" and considered part of that IP, but is still a movie / show called Star Trek that has some recognisable elements, and some not recognisable elements.
You don't need to use specifically "Klingon" to have that archetype in a Star Trek setting; shit, Star Trek themselves have not only made multiple variants of the Klingons which are all radically different from each other

but have also used other races to fulfill that template in other shows; the Jem'Hadar in DS9 and the Kazon in Voyager were both filling the narrative role that would otherwise have been the Klingons (if the Klingons had not been part of the federation; if the Klingons had existed in the Delta Quadrant)

 

[HyGogg]

Again; what are the specific parts that are infringing that should be removed?
The names of technologies, the concept of precursors - these are not copyrightable things. Any more than "A school where people learn magic" is a copyrightable aspect of Harry Potter.
You cannot infringe on non-copyrightable things.

Like I said, if there are enough of them that the court considers them substantially similar, they are. That's how copyright works.

All copyright works are composed of elements that, individually, are not copyrightable, but this argument has absolutely zero legal weight. I think you should probably read up on some plagiarism cases.

It declares the entire game to be infringing because it is a game like Star Control.

It does not. A DMCA take down can be issued for something as trivial as using a copyrighted font without the appropriate license. It does not have to cover the entire work if any part of it is infringing.

There is no doubt that stardock wanted to use races they did not have the right to use.

there is no doubt they planned to use races they did not have the right to use.
There is no doubt they tried to strongarm ownership of races they wanted to use to try and force the rights to use them

That doesn't matter, because they didn't use them in the end product.

That's fucking weird then, because they're right here:

 

[LordRaptor]

It does not. A DMCA take down can be issued for something as trivial as using a copyrighted font without the appropriate license. It does not have to cover the entire work if any part of it is infringing.

I'm not talking in the abstract.
I'm talking about the fucking DMCA they actually issued, which was that SC:O is a derivative work as a clone game of Star Control.

That's fucking weird then, because they're right here:

Again, your obvious bias here is showing:
Those aren't the Arilou. Nowhere in the game are they ever referred to as such. They are 'little green men'
Yes, it is super fucking obvious that they are what stardock wanted to make the arilou, but you can't tell me that this:

and this

are immediately identifiable as the same thing, that P&F own the rights to both because they are so identical, or that any reasonable person looking at these two images would conclude that they are of the same thing.

 

[HyGogg]

I'm not talking in the abstract.
I'm talking about the fucking DMCA they actually issued, which was that SC:O is a derivative work as a clone game of Star Control.

"Derivative work" is a legal term from the licensing agreement they signed, basically that SC:O is essentially using their "universe," which is what they're trying to argue.

Whether or not you agree with that assessment of SC:O it's not about it being a "clone" in the sense you keep suggesting and has more to do with ripping off the copyrighted elements of the game's fiction.

Again, your obvious bias here is showing:
Those aren't the Arilou. Nowhere in the game are they ever referred to as such. They are 'little green men'

The similarities not only in appearance and dress, but also the identical backstory and context in which they appear are going to make that a very difficult position to defend. It's up to the judge to decide, but I think Stardock have a big hill to climb, here.

Is that enough? I don't know, but I will say people have lost plagiarism cases for less. Comparing this to PUBG/Fortnite or even Capcom v Data East does not really understand why those cases were thrown out and what makes this one so much more damning. Data East was able to defend themselves on the basis that both they and Street Fighter took common inspiration from martial arts and that the similarities were coincidental/based on existing tropes. Stardock is not really in a position to argue that the similarities here are anything less than deliberate. It's a very tough position to defend. Especially when you put this in the context of a guy frustrated with his inability to purchase the Reiche IP.

It's like if a guy went into a store, asked to buy a game, and got told he doesn't have enough money. So he then says "Well, this is my store," takes the game, and calls to police to tell them to evict the tresspassers in "his" store. That's more or less what Wardell is doing, and the judge is not going to have a lot of sympathy. It's clear from what the judge has written thus far she thinks Wardell is a joke.

 

[LordRaptor]

That's more or less what Wardell is doing, and the judge is not going to have a lot of sympathy. It's clear from what the judge has written thus far she thinks Wardell is a joke.

Wardell is a fucking tool, but that doesn't mean that P&F aren't being fucking dicks about this.
Because they absolutely are.

There is no way that you can put that image - 6 green alien characters I thought of off the top of my head, at least half long predate Star Control - and say that images 1 and 4 are the closest match

 

[HyGogg]

Wardell is a fucking tool, but that doesn't mean that P&F aren't being fucking dicks about this.
Because they absolutely are.

There is no way that you can put that image - 6 green alien characters I thought of off the top of my head, at least half long predate Star Control - and say that images 1 and 4 are the closest match

How many more times are you going to make me explain to you that this isn't about any one thing the but the cumulation of hundreds of overt similarities?

It's not just that these guys have big heads and green skin, it's the ENTIRETY of their storyline on top of that, along with all the other things the game has nicked.

Which you know because I said it in my post. You keep playing dumb about this point and just focusing in on the smallest possible things while ignoring the big picture. Why do you keep making me belabor this point over and over again? Either give me a compelling counterargument or give up on that point, but don't keep pretending you just didn't read it over and over.

 

[LordRaptor]

How many more times are you going to make me explain to you that this isn't about any one thing the but the cumulation of hundreds of overt similarities?

It's not just that these guys have big heads and green skin, it's the ENTIRETY of their storyline on top of that, along with all the other things the game has nicked.

Which you know because I said it in my post. You keep playing dumb about this point and just focusing in on the smallest possible things while ignoring the big picture. Why do you keep making me belabor this point over and over again? Either give me a compelling counterargument or give up on that point, but don't keep pretending you just didn't read it over and over.

dude, you keep saying P&F aren't saying the things they're literally saying.
you're the one talking about "The arilou" being in SC:O, when they are not, nor is their 'backstory', their appearance, or any other copyrightable element, because some unnamed green aliens show up briefly as a cameo for an insignificant portion of a much larger game.

I've literally said; what are the specific infringing things that SC:O has implemented? What are the specific elements that should be removed?
"Green aliens" aren;t the fucking Arilou. Yes, even if they would have been if SD had got those rights. They didn't get those rights and they're not.
They are legally distinctive. How the fuck can you look at those two images and say they are not?
Copyright law has specific gradations of the "totality" of whether something is or is not infringing, and if sufficient changes are made to someone elses property - even where the intention is to straight rip someone off - it is not an infringing product.
I'm using this specific because you brought it up as an (the only) example of something within SC:O that P&F own the copyright to, and are valid in issuing a DMCA for.
But they don't own that green alien! Its not even close to being infringing in terms of appearance, or centrality to the game story or gameplay!
So what the fuck is the point in bringing that up as an example of infringement - again, the only example of infringement you have brought up! - then hwne being shown that it is not infirnging then falling back to "Oh, but you have to look at everything else, not just that...".
NO.
You can't just fucking say "SC:O is definitely infringing. But I can't point out where it is, because there aren't any actual examples. But "look and feel" because its a game like Star Control and they didn't make Star Control".
That's not a counter to the argument I am making. That's just saying "Nuh-uh" to the argument I'm making.
They can't control clone games, they have no fucking rights whatsoever to block clone games, it doesn't fucking matter that a clone game looks and feels a whole fucking lot like the game it is a clone of.

Their claim is bullshit.

You just keep reiterating P&Fs "look and feel" bullshit - I've already said that that is bullshit, the court is going to determine that that is bullshit (and the DMCA has already been overturned because that too was bullshit).

 

[HyGogg]

dude, you keep saying P&F aren't saying the things they're literally saying.
you're the one talking about "The arilou" being in SC:O, when they are not, nor is their 'backstory', their appearance, or any other copyrightable element, because some unnamed green aliens show up briefly as a cameo for an insignificant portion of a much larger game.

I've literally said; what are the specific infringing things that SC:O has implemented? What are the specific elements that should be removed?
"Green aliens" aren;t the fucking Arilou. Yes, even if they would have been if SD had got those rights. They didn't get those rights and they're not.
They are legally distinctive. How the fuck can you look at those two images and say they are not?
Copyright law has specific gradations of the "totality" of whether something is or is not infringing, and if sufficient changes are made to someone elses property - even where the intention is to straight rip someone off - it is not an infringing product.
I'm using this specific because you brought it up as an (the only) example of something within SC:O that P&F own the copyright to, and are valid in issuing a DMCA for.
But they don't own that green alien! Its not even close to being infringing in terms of appearance, or centrality to the game story or gameplay!
So what the fuck is the point in bringing that up as an example of infringement - again, the only example of infringement you have brought up! - then hwne being shown that it is not infirnging then falling back to "Oh, but you have to look at everything else, not just that...".
NO.
You can't just fucking say "SC:O is definitely infringing. But I can't point out where it is, because there aren't any actual examples. But "look and feel" because its a game like Star Control and they didn't make Star Control".
That's not a counter to the argument I am making. That's just saying "Nuh-uh" to the argument I'm making.
They can't control clone games, they have no fucking rights whatsoever to block clone games, it doesn't fucking matter that a clone game looks and feels a whole fucking lot like the game it is a clone of.

Their claim is bullshit.

You just keep reiterating P&Fs "look and feel" bullshit - I've already said that that is bullshit, the court is going to determine that that is bullshit (and the DMCA has already been overturned because that too was bullshit).

Dude, seriously. Do you think the judge is going to look at this and buy the argument that the similarities are a coincidence and that this race is an original work seperate from the Arilou?

Come on, man. We know what they're doing. Changing a couple words around after the fact is not enough to skirt copyright when you've been this blatant. This is faaaaar more substantial than a broad "look and feel" case. You're in denial.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Guys, you've been at this for a fucking week - saying the same things over and over.

What's the point?

 

[Elestan]

Let me try a slightly different angle. There are a few aspects to this case that I'm quite curious to see play out in the legal arguments later this year. One such is the possibility of copyright law having to deal with the "Ship of Theseus" question:

To elaborate, what if, at some point during development, Stardock actually said "Let's put the Arilou from SCII in the game". You would normally never hear a copyright defendant admit such a thing, which makes it hard to directly prove that something is a derivative of a copyright work; you instead need to prove it indirectly by showing that the alleged copier had access to the original, and that elements of their work are so similar to the original that they must have been copied.

But here, we have a record of Brad's emails to Paul, where he said (July 22, 2013):

we would like any new Star Control game to exist within the "universe" that you created.

In that email thread, he later said that he would never use the aliens without permission. But once P&F told him they were making their own game, he reversed himself, eventually asserting:

Future Star Control games will have the classic Star Control aliens in them.

He then (as the already-posted artwork indicates) added a race of aliens called "Ariou" to SC:O which, while not identical to the Arilou in SCII, certainly bear similarities.

So here, Brad is already on record saying that he was very knowledgeable about the original games, that he wanted his new game to be based off of them, and that - even after the legal dispute was ongoing - he would be putting the aliens from the original games in his games. So he's already admitted access, motivation, and intent.

This is where we get to the Ship of Theseus. If, during the development of SC:O, elements of SCII were copied into the game (for example. by saying "we want the players to acquire tech from an orange-skinned hairless earless noseless alien race called the Melnorme"), and only later modified to be less similar (by renaming them or altering the artwork or other racial characteristics) in order to try to stay just on the legal side of the copyright infringement line, does that actually work, legally? Can you start your work by deriving parts of it from a copyrighted source, and then effectively "launder" the derivation by changing it enough?

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to opine an answer. But it will be interesting to see if we find out.

 

[Nickolaidas]

Let me try a slightly different angle. There are a few aspects to this case that I'm quite curious to see play out in the legal arguments later this year. One such is the possibility of copyright law having to deal with the "Ship of Theseus" question:

To elaborate, what if, at some point during development, Stardock actually said "Let's put the Arilou from SCII in the game". You would normally never hear a copyright defendant admit such a thing, which makes it hard to directly prove that something is a derivative of a copyright work; you instead need to prove it indirectly by showing that the alleged copier had access to the original, and that elements of their work are so similar to the original that they must have been copied.

But here, we have a record of Brad's emails to Paul, where he said (July 22, 2013):



In that email thread, he later said that he would never use the aliens without permission. But once P&F told him they were making their own game, he reversed himself, eventually asserting:



He then (as the already-posted artwork indicates) added a race of aliens called "Ariou" to SC:O which, while not identical to the Arilou in SCII, certainly bear similarities.

So here, Brad is already on record saying that he was very knowledgeable about the original games, that he wanted his new game to be based off of them, and that - even after the legal dispute was ongoing - he would be putting the aliens from the original games in his games. So he's already admitted access, motivation, and intent.

This is where we get to the Ship of Theseus. If, during the development of SC:O, elements of SCII were copied into the game (for example. by saying "we want the players to acquire tech from an orange-skinned hairless earless noseless alien race called the Melnorme"), and only later modified to be less similar (by renaming them or altering the artwork or other racial characteristics) in order to try to stay just on the legal side of the copyright infringement line, does that actually work, legally? Can you start your work by deriving parts of it from a copyrighted source, and then effectively "launder" the derivation by changing it enough?

I'm not a lawyer, so I won't try to opine an answer. But it will be interesting to see if we find out.

But shouldn't the copyright theft charges be targeted at the finished product instead of the product's early stages?

Also, Wardell asked for permission and was denied. So he can easily say "they told me not to do it, so I didn't do it."

He may be going apeshit now by trying to trademark captain fwiffo, but that doesn't make Origins an illegal product.

 

[LordRaptor]

This is where we get to the Ship of Theseus. If, during the development of SC:O, elements of SCII were copied into the game (for example. by saying "we want the players to acquire tech from an orange-skinned hairless earless noseless alien race called the Melnorme"), and only later modified to be less similar (by renaming them or altering the artwork or other racial characteristics) in order to try to stay just on the legal side of the copyright infringement line, does that actually work, legally? Can you start your work by deriving parts of it from a copyrighted source, and then effectively "launder" the derivation by changing it enough?

Yes, that happens all the time.
If a thing that would infringe is changed enough so that it no longer infringes, it no longer infringes. It doesn't matter if it was intended to deliberately infringe from the get go, and then changed at the last minute to avoid infringement, or if it was accidentally extremely similar but not legally infringing.

Its why you sometimes see adverts with a song or soundtrack that sounds extremely familiar to something popular, but is just different enough that they do not need to licence the track the advert was obviously edited to.
Its why you rarely see Google in Film or TV, you see a search engine webpage that looks a whole lot like google, but has a madeup name instead (even if the screenplay says "Lead Character uses Google to look up information" - it will be changed just enough to not infringe on Googles IP prior to release). Although MS are so desperate to push Bing you often just see people use Bing instead.

To use a videogame example, the MP5 is a pretty common gun in FPS games. Except... where it isn't.
Because the MP5 name and specific appearance is owned by Heckler & Koch, you will very often see a gun that looks a whole lot like an MP5, but that has been altered in a couple of ways that make it legally distinctive from an MP5, like shorting the barrel, moving the stock, and renamed to something that evokes MP5 but is not MP5 - all of N64 GoldenEyes guns are examples of this, where they did not licence real world firearms name and likeness.
You would even be able to find strings in the code for "MP5" because thats what it would have been called in development, but they would not be public facing, and nowhere would the game call a notMP5 an MP5.

 

[LordRaptor]

all of N64 GoldenEyes guns are examples of this

Found an article about doing exactly this;

Some game makers have found ways to include real-life guns in their games while avoiding licensing costs. One ex-Codemasters employee, who asked to remain anonymous, described his experience of working on Operation Flashpoint, a franchise featuring the US Marines. "We didn't license weapons in the Flashpoint series," he says. "We covered ourselves from a legal angle [by not using any] names or manufacturers. The general rule is that you can use the model delineation but you can't use its proper name manufacturer name without prior permission.

"For example, we used 'M4A1 Carbine' which is the weapon's military code. Carbine means it's a shorter version for use in Close Quarters Battle. I forget if we refer to the weapons by name in the script but we were being so careful that we checked, double-checked and in many cases triple-checked with legal that we could use the weapon model numbers."

 

[Elestan]

But shouldn't the copyright theft charges be targeted at the finished product instead of the product's early stages? Also, Wardell asked for permission and was denied. So he can easily say "they told me not to do it, so I didn't do it."

If it seemed like he had genuinely backed off, and was intending to honor his previous commitments to Paul to not use the aliens, ships, or setting from the earlier games, I think I would agree.

But I think the dilemma that P&F face is that there is every reason to believe that the removal of that material is only temporary; Wardell has has never retracted his assertions that he can and will put the classic aliens in the games, and in fact has already made DLC using them. So if they were to drop the copyright infringement claims, such that this case would not delineate the scope of those copyrights, Brad is very likely to release updates containing the classic aliens as soon as the case is closed, forcing P&F to file an entirely new lawsuit if they want to keep him from doing so, and then having to go through another couple of years of litigation.

Given that, I can see why they might want to simply have it out, and try to get a ruling on as much as they can, even if it's against earlier builds, and even if the currently shipping product's infringement is questionable. If Stardock is found guilty of infringement, the court can impose an oversight mechanism that could be used to keep Stardock from putting the classic aliens in at a later date, without making P&F start fresh litigation to do so.

 

[LordRaptor]

So... this whole thing was a nothingburger.

Both sides have settled, SC:O remains on sale, P&F don't own any rights to 'games that are sort of like SC2' (or as in the argument above, 'aliens that sort of might be like 'arilou'), Stardock own the name 'Star Control', and they're both releasing games in the future.

 

[Elestan]

P&F don't own any rights to 'games that are sort of like SC2' (or as in the argument above, 'aliens that sort of might be like 'arilou')

Do you have a source for this part? The parties did settle, and clues have been slowly trickling out about what the terms might be, but I haven't seen anything pertinent to this. The rest does seem to match up with the evidence we have so far.

 

[LordRaptor]

Do you have a source for this part? The parties did settle, and clues have been slowly trickling out about what the terms might be, but I haven't seen anything pertinent to this. The rest does seem to match up with the evidence we have so far.

SC:O remains on sale, and it went back on sale prior to settlement due to their spurious DMCA takedowns on Steam & GOG with their 'trade dress' / "look and feel" claims that a game that plays like Star Control automatically belongs to them (see previous pages of this thread as to how they were making that argument, and why they should not have been making that argument)

 

[Elestan]

SC:O remains on sale, and it went back on sale prior to settlement

SC:O going back on sale did not have any legal significance; that was done at the discretion of Valve and GOG after Stardock agreed to indemnify them against any damages they might suffer if SC:O turned out to be infringing.

It is possible that the settlement terms allow SC:O to remain on sale in its current state, or that some changes might be made; we don't know the details yet. But a settlement is not a judgement; the question of whether P&F's "look and feel" argument would have ultimately prevailed is something we will never know. The same is true for Stardock's unproven claims, such as that it owned trademarks on the names of all of the alien races from SCII even though they were never used to market the game.

 

[LordRaptor]

SC:O going back on sale did not have any legal significance; that was done at the discretion of Valve and GOG after Stardock agreed to indemnify them against any damages they might suffer if SC:O turned out to be infringing.

It is possible that the settlement terms allow SC:O to remain on sale in its current state, or that some changes might be made; we don't know the details yet. But a settlement is not a judgement; the question of whether P&F's "look and feel" argument would have ultimately prevailed is something we will never know. The same is true for Stardock's unproven claims, such as that it owned trademarks on the names of all of the alien races from SCII even though they were never used to market the game.

Well, Stardock are making a new Star Control game, using the Star Control name, and if its gameplay is not like Star Control anymore, then maybe there arguments had some legal merits.

But I'm prepared to make an avatar bet that the next Star Control game by StarDock is going to be an iterative version of their existing Star Control game, and P&F settled on their side of things because they knew their argument had no real legal merits and was part of a negotiation tool.

e:
You'll notice that P&F have pulled all of their prior entries regarding SC:O, and the claims they were making as to ownership of all games like SC2 from their blog, and terminated with prejudice (meaning they cannot make that claim again) their claims to any ownership of the name Star Control, or claims that Stardock have no legal right to use the name Star Control.

 

[Elestan]

But I'm prepared to make an avatar bet that the next Star Control game by StarDock is going to be an iterative version of their existing Star Control game, and P&F settled on their side of things because they knew their argument had no real legal merits and was part of a negotiation tool.

I'm not a betting person in general, but I'm curious how you would ever resolve a bet that would require reading P&F's minds. The full settlement details might come out someday, but neither of the parties are likely to speak candidly about why they chose to settle in the manner they did.

You'll notice that P&F have pulled all of their prior entries regarding SC:O, and the claims they were making as to ownership of all games like SC2 from their blog,

Yes, and Stardock has deleted all of its postings and forum threads relating to the suit. That's probably pursuant to an agreement to stop saying bad things about each other. It's not an admission by either of them that they were wrong.

and terminated with prejudice (meaning they cannot make that claim again) their claims to any ownership of the name Star Control

All of the claims in the case on both sides were dismissed with prejudice. That's what a settlement does.

I also don't see where they ever claimed to own the "Star Control" name themselves. They just argued that Atari had abandoned the trademark on the name before it was sold to Stardock.

or claims that Stardock have no legal right to use the name Star Control.

I don't think they ever claimed that either. Saying that Stardock's trademark was invalid is not the same as saying that Stardock couldn't use the phrase. People use untrademarked names all the time.

 

[LordRaptor]

I also don't see where they ever claimed to own the "Star Control" name themselves. They just argued that Atari had abandoned the trademark on the name before it was sold to Stardock.

I don't think they ever claimed that either. Saying that Stardock's trademark was invalid is not the same as saying that Stardock couldn't use the phrase. People use untrademarked names all the time.

Outside of this lawsuit, P&F filed a trademark counterclaim to the name Star Control; this implicitly suggest that they
a) dispute StarDocks legal right to use it
b) have some legal right themselves to use it

 

[Elestan]

Outside of this lawsuit, P&F filed a trademark counterclaim to the name Star Control; this implicitly suggest that they
a) dispute StarDocks legal right to use it
b) have some legal right themselves to use it

Yes, I've read that trademark opposition. The arguments in it are primarily that "Star Control" can't be registered as a trademark because it would cause confusion with "The Ur-Quan Masters". Note, for example, the following paragraphs:

3. [...]Frungy has an interest in using the term descriptively in its business and have standing to oppose registration of the Opposed Mark.

46. Although the STAR CONTROL Mark was previously used to refer to a particular game or games, it is now often used to describe a whole group or genre of games making the mark generic and no longer a suitable designation of source or origin.

P&F weren't claiming that they owned the "Star Control" trademark; they were claiming that it wasn't a valid trademark at all anymore. If they wanted to claim it as their own mark, Paragraph 46 would have shot themselves in the foot.