Frogboy Frogboy

Stardock response to Paul and Fred [UPDATE]

Stardock response to Paul and Fred [UPDATE]

UPDATE: Make sure you read the official statement from Stardock regarding newer events.

 

Re: November's blog post by Paul and Fred claiming Stardock's objection to their new game being promoted as a "true sequel" constitutes Stardock preventing them from doing a new game.

We are disappointed that Paul and Fred, two people we have a great deal of respect and admiration for, have chosen to imply that we are somehow preventing them from working on their new game. 

Stardock has been nothing but supportive of their new project and wish them the best. I personally made the post here on StarControl.com in support of it.

With regards to their contentions:

First, as many people know, the classic Star Control games have been available for sale long before Stardock acquired the rights from Atari four years ago.  For the entirety of the time we have held the rights, they have been getting paid for those sales.  If they had an objection to the games being sold this is something that could and should have been addressed before we were ever involved. 

Second, we have stated, repeatedly and consistently for over four years that we are not using any of the aliens from the classic series.  As we have stated, our position is that, to the best of our knowledge, the classic alien IP is owned by them. 

We have also discussed, at length, why it wasn't commercially viable for us to attempt to continue or retell the Ur-Quan story. 25 years is just too long of a gap.  This is one of the reasons why we have been so excited about Paul and Fred's project.  Their game frees us to introduce new characters and a new story into the new Star Control while allowing fans of the classic series a way to continue the classic story.  This strikes us as a win-win situation.

Lastly, when we acquired Star Control from Atari in 2013, many assets were transferred to us including the various publishing agreements to the Star Control franchise.  The short version is that the classic IP is messy. We understand that this makes them "really really angry" but we weren't a party to that agreement.  All we can do is try to put something together that releases them from the restrictions placed on their IP that they agreed to and transfer any and all rights and responsibilities to them.  We want them to make Ghosts but we don't want any liability or association with it.  

Given the disturbing and unanticipated post by Paul and Fred, we are persuaded more than ever that a clear and irrefutable document that makes it clear that we are not associated or involved with their new game is needed. 

We have nothing but respect and admiration for Paul and Fred and wish them well in their new project.  

Update 12/4/2017:

Paul and Fred continue to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the DOS-based Star Control games. If they have any documentation to provide evidence to their assertions, we have yet to see them. 

Stardock, by contrast, possesses a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licensing and sales agreement that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade that has Paul Reiche's signature along with a signed distribution agreement between Atari and GOG for the DOS Accolade Star Control games. 

The tone of their blog posts is similar to the kind of correspondence they had with us since the announcement of their Ur-Quan Masters successor, vague, full of demands and without any documentation.  

With all due respect to Paul and Fred, they really should talk to competent legal counsel instead of making blog posts.

Update 12/5/2017:

Dealing with the sales and distribution of 20+ year old DOS games is an unusual way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless...

Atari had transferred to Stardock a signed agreement between Atari's President and GOG that we assumed was the agreement. Paul and Fred claimed they were the ones who had set up the agreement and upon verification with GOG, we instructed them to terminate this agreement which they have which we appreciate.

The games are now correctly transferred to Stardock and we will continue to ensue that Fred and Paul receive royalty payments for the games per the publishing agreement. We apologize if anyone was inconvenienced.  

Old IP can be messy to deal with. The best way to deal with that is to have the parties talk to each other (as opposed to making public Internet posts) and work something out.   We remain committed to dealing with this situation with as much restraint and gentleness as possible.

Update 2/27/2018

Added link to https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred to address Paul and Fred's latest complaints.   

At this stage, the parties are seeking to resolve their disagreements in court.  Stardock wishes this could have been resolved otherwise.

For the record, if Paul and Fred had simply announced their game as a sequel to Ur-Quan Masters and requested Stardock to remove the DOS games from distribution, Stardock would have complied out of respect, even if we would have been unhappy that they chose now, after 25 years, to jump back in the middle of Stardock's efforts to bring Star Control back.

However, by promoting their new game as a "direct-sequel" to Star Control (and in other places as the "true" sequel) while using the Star Control box art (which is owned by Stardock)  a great deal of consumer confusion has been created requiring Stardock to protect its IP rights.

Other links:

7,356,299 views 688 replies +6 Loading…
Reply #476 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 473


Ok Ill say it....Thank God. I was tired of their self absorbed 'poor us' blog posts.

It was unprofessional and showed how petty they really are. ....

Unfotunately this thread will slowly die out as information is now boxed up with both parties. 
End of Larsenex's quote

 

Agreed the woe is me poor us tragic princess routine is highly annoying, however seeing early revisions of the aliens we know and tracks that were considered but didn't make the cut in itself is pretty awesome to see/hear

+1 Loading…
Reply #477 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 470
I have seen a few newer posts on their SC reddit page. Most are PNF fans posting angrily such as Psycho, Icewind, Elestan and others. Mostly about how thier posts are removed.
End of Larsenex's quote

I don't believe I've ever made an angry post about Star Control, nor one that complained about my posts being removed.  If you find one, please tell me.

Reply #478 Top

Quoting Kavik_Kang, reply 456

I bet you are a fast typist.  50wpm+.  Fast typists are often accused of "spending all day in the forums" or, if they are wanting to attempt to discredit what you have said, "writing walls of text".  It's just how slower typists perceive how much time it is taking you to write what you are writing.
End of Kavik_Kang's quote

You know, I never thought of it that way. in my peak forum days in the 90s and early 00s, I was typing upwards of 100wpm and had like 50k+ posts on one board alone... and people always accused me of spending all day in the forums when it was just that I typed my shit really fast.

Reply #479 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 477

I don't believe I've ever made an angry post about Star Control, nor one that complained about my posts being removed.  If you find one, please tell me.
End of Elestan's quote

 

Elestan, I was grouping you in with the folks who (I thought) are  in P&F's camp. I think  it was Pscycho44 or such who was complaining that posts were removed from steam and I inferred that you had as well. I happily retract any such statements. My consensus is that the NON SCO Reddit forums are pro Paul and Fred and anti-Stardock. 

What I am completely amazed is the ignorance displayed.

We are all gamers. YOU (Elestan) ME (Larsenenex) and pretty much every poster plays games. We love games, we are passionate about games (see Kavick), so why would <anyone>  be against a game you love being  're-introduced by another developer with the money, know-how and code savvy to produce what may be the next big thing? 

Will the persons who claim to have created Star Control, build, produce, and distribute another Star Control game? My personal opinion is they announced one only to be malicious and create market confusion, (it did with me) and never had any intention of releasing a  'true Sequel' to Star Control. 

Will Stardock create, develop, distribute and improve upon, a game very similar to original in game play and fun as Star Control? Yes its happening now and I am truly amazed at the snippets I have had the privilege to see! 

Reply #480 Top

Quoting Larsenex, reply 479


Quoting Elestan,

I don't believe I've ever made an angry post about Star Control, nor one that complained about my posts being removed.  If you find one, please tell me.



 

Elestan, I was grouping you in with the folks who (I thought) are  in P&F's camp. I think  it was Pscycho44 or such who was complaining that posts were removed from steam and I inferred that you had as well. I happily retract any such statements. My consensus is that the NON SCO Reddit forums are pro Paul and Fred and anti-Stardock.

End of Larsenex's quote

I wouldn't want to give too much weight to a generalization, but I'd agree that the views there tend to be more sympathetic to P&F and less so to Stardock, relative to what is seen here, or on other Stardock-moderated forums.  I think that's only to be expected.

Brad has requested that I not discuss the case here, so I'll refrain from speaking further than that.

Reply #481 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 480

Brad has requested that I not discuss the case here, so I'll refrain from speaking further than that.
End of Elestan's quote

My issue isn't discussing the case.  It is that you choose to make legal conclusions or try to perform Internet lawyer litigation.

Before I gave up on the UQM they were delving into "assignment in gross" legal theories as if they had any idea of the concepts they were discussing all in the name of grasping at straws to find some way to retroactively prevent a new Star Control game.  Real fans.

Reply #482 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 481


Quoting Elestan,

Brad has requested that I not discuss the case here, so I'll refrain from speaking further than that.



My issue isn't discussing the case.  It is that you choose to make legal conclusions or try to perform Internet lawyer litigation.

Before I gave up on the UQM they were delving into "assignment in gross" legal theories as if they had any idea of the concepts they were discussing all in the name of grasping at straws to find some way to retroactively justify Paul and Fred's gross behavior.

End of Frogboy's quote

 

They banned me from UQM for pointing out that they didn't understand the law and that all of their legal conclusions were grossly incorrect. It isn't too much to ask that someone actually know more than a generic summary they read on a legal topic before they start typing out posts making conclusive statements about Stardock's wrongdoing. 

I guess pointing out facts in a non-aggressive manner is grounds for banning on that forum, if you don't play along with the narrative that Stardock is evil and Fred and Paul are saints. 

Reply #483 Top

I would say the issue was that if someone wants to say they don’t know what they’re talking about and implies that their motive for expressing misleading opinions is due to malice that they want specifics.  That’s why I think they banned you. They expected that you would provide specific examples.

But there’s no use arguing with people who will grasp at any straw to reach their desired outcome. 

Fundamentally, one can appreciate the work that an independent contractor provides to a studio while simultaneously recognizing that they were, literally, an independent contractor hired to do something.

Reply #484 Top

That is exactly what *I* was asking that the posters who were stating their legal analysis provide. I asked for specific citations to sources of law for their legal analysis, and not a single poster did. Their judgments were decidedly against Stardock and provided no factual basis for their analysis. 

Amusing how I am supposed to spend hours researching and writing a post to support my statement that they aren't basing their legal analysis on actual law, yet they aren't expected to actually reference anything when writing their misleading posts in the first place.

I think I know the answer to the above discrepancy in treatment..

Reply #485 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 481
Before I gave up on the UQM they were delving into "assignment in gross" legal theories as if they had any idea of the concepts they were discussing all in the name of grasping at straws to find some way to retroactively prevent a new Star Control game.  Real fans.
End of Frogboy's quote

I'd look at it this way:  Those are forums that for the last 15 years have been dedicated to discussions of a much loved open-source project called "The Ur-Quan Masters".  Stardock has just tried to trademark the phrase "The Ur-Quan Masters".  I'm not sure how one would expect anything other than a chilly response to such a move.

Even so, I don't recall anyone there stating that they wanted to prevent a new Star Control game.  The main sentiment is that they don't want Stardock's trademarks interfering with P&F's new game, nor with the UQM project.  Some would also prefer not to see Stardock using the SC2 aliens.  But I don't recall people saying that they didn't want Stardock making a game at all.

I'm also not sure why anyone wouldn't consider them "Real fans".  Just because Stardock has purchased the "Star Control" trademark doesn't mean that sincere fans of the original game can't have legitimate reasons to oppose Stardock's game design, legal strategy, or both.

Also, FWIW, I've since discussed the "assignment in gross" idea with an actual IP attorney.  Their opinion was that they didn't think it was likely to be a particularly strong argument, but also that they didn't think it was frivolous, and might be worth trying.  Which is about as good as one could hope for from armchair lawyering.

Reply #486 Top

Quoting eride, reply 482
They banned me from UQM for pointing out that they didn't understand the law and that all of their legal conclusions were grossly incorrect. It isn't too much to ask that someone actually know more than a generic summary they read on a legal topic before they start typing out posts making conclusive statements about Stardock's wrongdoing. 

I guess pointing out facts in a non-aggressive manner is grounds for banning on that forum, if you don't play along with the narrative that Stardock is evil and Fred and Paul are saints.
End of eride's quote

No, you were banned for making repeated personal attacks and assertions of ill intent against another poster (Full disclosure:  It was me), and then blowing off the moderator when he told you to either withdraw them or back them up with specific evidence.  It had nothing to do with your opinions about the case; I have no doubt that if I had said those same things about you, I would have been banned just as quickly.

That is exactly what *I* was asking that the posters who were stating their legal analysis provide. I asked for specific citations to sources of law for their legal analysis, and not a single poster did. Their judgments were decidedly against Stardock and provided no factual basis for their analysis.

Amusing how I am supposed to spend hours researching and writing a post to support my statement that they aren't basing their legal analysis on actual law, yet they aren't expected to actually reference anything when writing their misleading posts in the first place.

End of quote

I'm sorry, but this is not accurate.  Nobody ever insisted that you do any legal research.  All you were asked to do was to specify which particular point of fact or law you felt was incorrect.  You refused to do so, and instead focused almost exclusively on attacking the people making the arguments, rather than on disputing the arguments they were making.  I would have very much liked to have had a person with legal expertise arguing a position more favorable to Stardock than most on that forum have; I think it could have significantly improved the quality of our discussions.  But the way you chose to engage was not constructive.

Reply #487 Top

.  I would have very much liked to have had a person with legal expertise arguing a position more favorable to Stardock than most on that forum have; I think it could have significantly improved the quality of our discussions.
End of quote

That line really says it all imo.  There is no one there with any legal expertise on that forum. But you seem to think a bunch of techies can somehow play Internet lawyer with “legal expertise”.

I’m pretty sure the only one there with any actual IP litigation experience was me. That thread is just an embarrassment. I doubt I’ll be returning.

 

Reply #488 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 487

That thread is just an embarrassment. I doubt I’ll be returning.
End of Frogboy's quote

Yes, but it's sooooo entertaining ...;)

Practising Lawyers only 'practise'.... whereas amateur Lawyers actually KNOW what's what.

The acronym 'FIGJAM' springs to mind....;p

Reply #489 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 488


Quoting Frogboy,

That thread is just an embarrassment. I doubt I’ll be returning.



Yes, but it's sooooo entertaining ...;)

Practising Lawyers only 'practise'.... whereas amateur Lawyers actually KNOW what's what.

The acronym 'FIGJAM' springs to mind....;P

End of Jafo's quote

Indeed! And a party demanding the right to inspect their competitor’s products and have rights to use their competitor’s trademarks without compensation is perfectly reasonable. After all, why have property rights at all? It’s little better than the warez users trying to argue why its wrong to charge for software.

Reply #491 Top

Quoting Jafo, reply 488

The acronym 'FIGJAM' springs to mind....
End of Jafo's quote

 

I want to say most of the issue with armchair lawyering is a PEBCAK.  Sure I have opinions on things but do my best not to represent them as hardcore facts.

Reply #492 Top

Quoting SirPrimalform, reply 490

That's an interesting edit there Brad. What exactly prompted that? 
End of SirPrimalform's quote

Because I'm skeptical that those guys really believe Paul and Fred will create a new game. 

Reply #493 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 487
There is no one there with any legal expertise on that forum. But you seem to think a bunch of techies can somehow play Internet lawyer with “legal expertise”.
End of Frogboy's quote

I've already responded to this line of argument over there, so I'll just link to it.

Reply #494 Top

Quoting Pyro411, reply 491
Sure I have opinions on things but do my best not to represent them as hardcore facts.
End of Pyro411's quote

As do I.  If you can find a place where I've stated my opinion as a "hardcore fact" without sufficient evidence to back it up, please point it out to me, and I will either provide more support for it, or clarify that it's just opinion.

Reply #495 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 494


Quoting Pyro411,
Sure I have opinions on things but do my best not to represent them as hardcore facts.



As do I.  If you can find a place where I've stated my opinion as a "hardcore fact" without sufficient evidence to back it up, please point it out to me, and I will either provide more support for it, or clarify that it's just opinion.

End of Elestan's quote

At some point, Elestan, you would benefit from some self-reflection in how you write.

You regularly speak as if you have some sort of authority.  This might work in a technical document but not when you are speaking well outside your area of expertise.

You also make very inappropriate implications.  For example, you implied that the judge was somehow delivering an opinion on the merits of posted settlement discussions (that's certainly how I read it) when nothing of the kind took place (I doubt he read them). 

Similarly, you write things like "That's not actually how to negotiate" as if you have some sort of experience in this sort of thing.  Have you ever even been in litigation Elestan? If not, how can you possibly know? You don't even known the context.  You just eat up what's been fed to you by one party without question (while showing immense skepticism the other way around while pretending to be a neutral observer).

You also have no idea of the context of which settlement offers were made or even understand the purposes of them (let me give you a hint: It's not clear that Paul and Fred own anything, at all, that could actually be used in a new game. Did it ever occur to you that the objective is to just make them go away and quit harassing us in the media?  Instead, you make these assumptions and present them as facts when you really have no idea of the background both in law or of the facts that the parties have.  In short, your posts are obnoxious.

If you want to continue to play pretend lawyer, by all means, do so. Just not here.  Over here, we are developing a new Star Control game.  We can appreciate the work that Paul and Fred did 25 years ago but they have no more rights to the Star Control IP than any other contracted party who created content.  

Reply #496 Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 495
For example, you implied that the judge was somehow delivering an opinion on the merits of posted settlement discussions (that's certainly how I read it) when nothing of the kind took place (I doubt he read them).
End of Frogboy's quote

I certainly didn't intend any such implication.  The other poster had indicated that he felt that it was normal to take extreme positions in negotiations (citing you as an authority).  Rather than ask people to take my word on it, my post was citing the magistrate in charge of your settlement talks as an authority on settlements, and basing my statements on his words saying that extreme positions were not helpful.

EDIT:  Also, on reflection, I've edited that post to clarify that such positions are sometimes used in hardball negotiations, but that I (and the magistrate) have a low opinion on the use of such tactics.

If you want to continue to play pretend lawyer, by all means, do so. Just not here.
End of quote

I think if I respond further, we're going to move into this area, so I'll stop there.

Reply #497 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 496

I certainly didn't intend any such implication.  The other poster had indicated that he felt that it was normal to take extreme positions in negotiations (citing you as an authority).  Rather than ask people to take my word on it, my post was citing the magistrate in charge of your settlement talks as an authority on settlements, and basing my statements on his words saying that extreme positions were not helpful.

EDIT:  Also, on reflection, I've edited that post to clarify that such positions are sometimes used in hardball negotiations, but that I (and the magistrate) have a low opinion on the use of such tactics.
End of Elestan's quote

I appreciate that.  To me, it came across that there was some sort of objective judgment on the offers.

EDIT:  Also, on reflection, I've edited that post to clarify that such positions are sometimes used in hardball negotiations, but that I (and the magistrate) have a low opinion on the use of such tactics.
End of quote

The magistrate hasn't given any opinion whatsoever on the offers other than that they may not be discussed, hence, the lack of discussion on them. We've been privy to the entire discussion that surrounds these orders.  

What you personally consider hardball or unreasonable is not really the subject here.  I know I’ve found it pretty mystifying that people will argue that the trademark wasn’t worth $300,000 but some unknown collection of art, DOS source code, and user manual text is worth more,

When this is all over, it will make for an interesting discussion on what copyright is and isn’t. Copyright protects specific, unique creative works. It doesn’t protect ideas. It doesn’t protect concepts. It doesn’t protect words. It doesn’t protect designs. It doesn’t protect recipes. It doesn’t protect timelines. It doesn’t protect descriptions. It doesn’t protect catch phrases.

You or anyone else on this forum could go out and create a game that is a clone of Star Control 2. You could have the Ur-Quan, Spathi, etc. in there.  It could play the same. The lore could be the same (I.e. basic history,  not a word for word reproduction). The story could be the same as long as long as the flow of words aren’t substantially similar. The aliens could look similar provided that they are not substantially similar to the unique elements of the sc 2 aliens.

The only thing that would stop them would be trademark. If the new game creates confusion in the marketplace that it’s somehow related to Star Control (like having the aliens) then that could stop them.  But copyright wouldn’t.

Want your game to have an alien called the Zro that says *happy campers* and *frumple*? It’s not copyright that would get you in trouble. It’s trademark. If it can be shown that there is a likelihood of confusion in thinking your game is related to Star Control you could be in trouble.

The question of confusion is tied to the trademark. Not copyright. Hence, whatever copyrights PF have are of very limited value today. 

If you do something that makes people think it’s related to someone else’s product or service it’s trademark that comes into play. Copyright protects works, patents protect inventions. 

+2 Loading…
Reply #498 Top

I'm glad I kept reading this thread up until now.

Frogboy last post is very informative and clears a lot of confusion I had over the subject.

 

I think people are too focused on trying to defend a point that they forget to see the big picture. Getting one phrase or one part of the whole and hammering on it as if this one point being reasonable or not is what defines everything else.

But every single part of it has a purpose and it only makes sense if you put it all together.

 

And also this is the most important part of all:

Quoting Frogboy, reply 495

It's not clear that Paul and Fred own anything, at all, that could actually be used in a new game. Did it ever occur to you that the objective is to just make them go away and quit harassing us in the media?
End of Frogboy's quote

I would assume most people would know it but it seems to be the first thing they dismiss.

Reply #499 Top

Quoting Elestan, reply 486


Quoting eride,
They banned me from UQM for pointing out that they didn't understand the law and that all of their legal conclusions were grossly incorrect. It isn't too much to ask that someone actually know more than a generic summary they read on a legal topic before they start typing out posts making conclusive statements about Stardock's wrongdoing. 

I guess pointing out facts in a non-aggressive manner is grounds for banning on that forum, if you don't play along with the narrative that Stardock is evil and Fred and Paul are saints.



No, you were banned for making repeated personal attacks and assertions of ill intent against another poster (Full disclosure:  It was me), and then blowing off the moderator when he told you to either withdraw them or back them up with specific evidence.  It had nothing to do with your opinions about the case; I have no doubt that if I had said those same things about you, I would have been banned just as quickly.


That is exactly what *I* was asking that the posters who were stating their legal analysis provide. I asked for specific citations to sources of law for their legal analysis, and not a single poster did. Their judgments were decidedly against Stardock and provided no factual basis for their analysis.

Amusing how I am supposed to spend hours researching and writing a post to support my statement that they aren't basing their legal analysis on actual law, yet they aren't expected to actually reference anything when writing their misleading posts in the first place.



I'm sorry, but this is not accurate.  Nobody ever insisted that you do any legal research.  All you were asked to do was to specify which particular point of fact or law you felt was incorrect.  You refused to do so, and instead focused almost exclusively on attacking the people making the arguments, rather than on disputing the arguments they were making.  I would have very much liked to have had a person with legal expertise arguing a position more favorable to Stardock than most on that forum have; I think it could have significantly improved the quality of our discussions.  But the way you chose to engage was not constructive.

End of Elestan's quote

 

It is unfortunate that you view someone pointing out that you don't have any basis in knowledge of the topic you are discussing as an attack. It is a statement of fact. You don't know the law; you can't cite any statutes, regulations, case law, etc. for any of the legal-IP issues you've been discussing. You don't know all of the relevant facts; you couldn't properly apply the law even if you knew the law.

I told the moderator that every single post where you apply the law to the facts of the dispute is misleading and deceptive, and the target of your analysis is only one-party. What I told the moderator is a true statement, and qualifies as the specific evidence requested. I was banned anyway, I wonder why.

You obviously don't "get" the legal system. I am telling you that there isn't *any* attorney posting that could perform legal analysis regarding this dispute because no individual who isn't a party to this dispute possesses all of the relevant facts. You can't possibly be performing valid legal analysis because you don't have either knowledge of the law or the relevant facts. That makes every post where you apply an area of IP law to the "facts" of this dispute deceptive and you should expect to be challenged.

The false equivalency in today's world is ridiculous. I am an attorney, and I am not going around the forums posting my analysis of IP law to this dispute. You have zero expertise and are performing such analysis and yet describe my statements of your lack of knowledge as an attack yet your deceptive posts that attack Stardock are... what exactly?

 

 

Reply #500 Top

I'm content letting my reply (and an earlier one) on the UQM forum speak for themselves.  People are welcome to read your posts there, in isolation or in context, and decide for themselves whether they feel they were appropriate.