When does the CHS/GW battle finish?

[Denzark]

Not heard the latest news on this one. Anybody know (without that Weeble fella coming on to preach exclusively) when the next step is?

[weeble1000]

It's interesting how you're interested in an update about the case but not about having a rational, mature discussion about it that doesn't involve insults and sarcasm.

For the benefit of folks here at BOLS I'll give a brief update about the progress of the case. Given the way discussions about this case have progressed on these forums in the past, my contribution will be limited to this post. If you have any specific questions about the case, you can PM me. There's been some interesting discussions about the case in various places on the internet, so you can also take a look around.

GW filed a complaint against CHS on December 21st, 2010.

GW notified CHS of the filing by mail on December 22nd, 2010. Whether GW considered this lawful service of said complaint was ambiguous.

According to GW's First Amended Complaint (see below) there was no contact between GW and CHS subsequent to this notification.

GW officially served the complaint on January 11th, 2011.

On Feb 8th, 2011 Jennifer Golinveaux of Winston and Strawn filed a notice of appearance for CHS. This was when CHS got pro-bono representation from Winston and Strawn.

On March 3rd, 2011 CHS filed a motion to dismiss based largely on lack of specificity. CHS requested that alternative to dismissal, GW be required to amend the complaint.

On March 21st, 2011, GW filed the First Amended Complaint. This complaint included what amounted to four new paragraphs inserted into the original complaint.

On March 28th, 2011 CHS renewed its motion to dismiss on largely the same grounds. Pursuant to local rules of civil procedure Ms. Golinveaux presented the renewed motion to the court in person. Judge Kennelly denied the motion but required GW to respond to early discovery aimed at clarifying its claims against CHS.

On April 20th, 2011 CHS answered GW's First Amended Complaint, denying all claims and making a long list of affirmative defenses including abandonment of copyright, Laches, unclean hands, unfair competition, etc. CHS has requested attorney's fees and court costs as part of these affirmative defenses.

There is a status conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wed, May 11th.

On May 9th, 2011 Attorneys Ronald H. Spuhler, Ronald A DiCerbo, and Thomas James Campbell, Jr. of the Chicago-based firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy filed notices of appearance for John Paulson. Clearly, McAndrews, Held & Malloy is representing Paulson pro-bono.

Interpret that as you please.

[wittdooley]

Some quick questions:

In regards to abandonment of copyright, I assume CHS would have to make an assertion of what CW has been abandoned?

As for laches... So...under this CHS is stating that, because GW didn't sue RIGHT when CHS began producing their copies, then they didn't make the claim soon enough?

Could not GW also file an unclean hands against CHS, in that CHS clearly hasn't been acting ethically or in good faith?

Really looking for answers, as my interpretation clearly doesn't have enough legal background.

[Aldramelech]

[QUOTE=weeble1000;137265]It's interesting how you're interested in an update about the case but not about having a rational, mature discussion about it that doesn't involve insults and sarcasm.

For the benefit of folks here at BOLS I'll give a brief update about the progress of the case. Given the way discussions about this case have progressed on these forums in the past, my contribution will be limited to this post. If you have any specific questions about the case, you can PM me. There's been some interesting discussions about the case in various places on the internet, so you can also take a look around.

GW filed a complaint against CHS on December 21st, 2010.

GW notified CHS of the filing by mail on December 22nd, 2010. Whether GW considered this lawful service of said complaint was ambiguous.

According to GW's First Amended Complaint (see below) there was no contact between GW and CHS subsequent to this notification.

GW officially served the complaint on January 11th, 2011.

On Feb 8th, 2011 Jennifer Golinveaux of Winston and Strawn filed a notice of appearance for CHS. This was when CHS got pro-bono representation from Winston and Strawn.

On March 3rd, 2011 CHS filed a motion to dismiss based largely on lack of specificity. CHS requested that alternative to dismissal, GW be required to amend the complaint.

On March 21st, 2011, GW filed the First Amended Complaint. This complaint included what amounted to four new paragraphs inserted into the original complaint.

On March 28th, 2011 CHS renewed its motion to dismiss on largely the same grounds. Pursuant to local rules of civil procedure Ms. Golinveaux presented the renewed motion to the court in person. Judge Kennelly denied the motion but required GW to respond to early discovery aimed at clarifying its claims against CHS.

On April 20th, 2011 CHS answered GW's First Amended Complaint, denying all claims and making a long list of affirmative defenses including abandonment of copyright, Laches, unclean hands, unfair competition, etc. CHS has requested attorney's fees and court costs as part of these affirmative defenses.

There is a status conference scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on Wed, May 11th.

Interpret that as you please.[/QUOTE

Cheers for that Weeble.

[Denzark]

Well I got weebled, but at least he didn't carry on like a TV evangelist this time. 1 out of 2 is close enough for government work.

Thank you for the update however.

[wittdooley]

He seems to be more at home on Warseer with these topics, where Chapterhouse has been more vocal due to lots of verbal BJs being given out over there.

[Denzark]

OK so being 2354 UK time on 12 May, I think we can ask what happened on 11 May at the case conference thingamabob....

[Denzark]

OK, weeby kindly PM'd me with this:

Ask who Denzark? I can't believe you have the gall to stifle discussion about this case by being unreasonably insulting and still go looking for constant updates. Well you won't get it from me.

If you care so much about this case, why don't you take it upon yourself to find out what is going on, or make any other kind of constructive contribution. All of the information is out there. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to find out what is going on.

But what good is an update if you have no idea what it means. And you really don't, Denzark. You have no clear idea about what is going on with this case and what it means, and that's because you have no interest in any information that contradicts your grossly uninformed opinion.

I dare you to find something useful to contribute, but I doubt we'll see any meaningful activity on that thread unless someone copies posts from another forum.

FYI weebs I can't be arsed to wade through the 50+ (I exagerate not) pages of circle jerking on Warcrap.

Let me break your comments down.

I have taken upon myself to find out what has gone on - I asked if anybody knows. Saves me hours of google and crap like the aforementioned forum.

I have a rough idea what is going on in the case, and I do understand what it means - you have no idea what my comprehension is. Actually, intelligence gathering is like history research. You take all primary source information and assess it. You look at the source and their motivation. In your case you already set out your stall when you called for people to deliberately boycott GW products to try and harm that company when you thought the recent profit warning meant they were in danger. Sort of like a jackal or vulture.

So when I see your biaised crap, I do what the allies did with Lord Haw Haw or possibly Comical Ali - listen, disregard the cack and see if any of what remains is of interest.

I care not particularly what you think of my contributions as one man's turd is another man's treasure, but I am fairly sure I am far more of a positive than you as you only seem to come on here to do your Perez hilton bit in favour of CHS, then you bugger off back from whence you came.

Don't bother PM'ing me again, you can jog on and I care not whether you give an update, one will appear here soon enough.

[addamsfamily36]

Denzark, iv'e been on the warseer thread too. 51 pages! tried looking back through towards the end of the thread for any relevant news but a lot of it is just bickering. I don't blame you for asking the forums for any relative information.

I wanted to find an answer both for you and myself but stopped looking as i was only getting more and more annoyed at the continued support for CHS from people who are also GW customers and 40k players.

Seeing in one thread someone slate GW and its lack of contribution to the hobby by providing "parts", to then go to another thread and see the exact same person praise GW's work on the entire Dark eldar range!

[Nabterayl]

Can't imagine much of interest occurred at the status conference. It's just an administrative meeting to decide on a trial schedule.

A defense of laches is not quite that, wittdooley. A defense of laches essentially says, "Yes, I violated your copyright, but you knew about it, and didn't do anything, and it would be completely unfair to me if I was punished for violating your copyright now because it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that because you were inactive for X amount of time, you weren't going to sue me ever." In order for a laches defense to work, the defendant needs to prove (i) the plaintiff knew of the defendant's copyright infringement, (ii) the plaintiff's delay in taking action was inexcusable, (iii) the defendant would be unduly prejudiced if the plaintiff were allowed to assert its rights now. Exactly how long is "inexcusable" will vary with the circumstances, but laches certainly doesn't require a plaintiff to sue the instant they know about an infringement as a general rule.

Abandonment of copyright is a pretty gray area, and I'd be surprised if that claim went anywhere. Pretty much the only reliable way I know of to demonstrate that somebody has abandoned their copyright is for them to execute a writing that says "I hereby abandon my copyright and place it in the public domain."

[wittdooley]

Can't imagine much of interest occurred at the status conference. It's just an administrative meeting to decide on a trial schedule.

A defense of laches is not quite that, wittdooley. A defense of laches essentially says, "Yes, I violated your copyright, but you knew about it, and didn't do anything, and it would be completely unfair to me if I was punished for violating your copyright now because it was perfectly reasonable for me to assume that because you were inactive for X amount of time, you weren't going to sue me ever." In order for a laches defense to work, the defendant needs to prove (i) the plaintiff knew of the defendant's copyright infringement, (ii) the plaintiff's delay in taking action was inexcusable, (iii) the defendant would be unduly prejudiced if the plaintiff were allowed to assert its rights now. Exactly how long is "inexcusable" will vary with the circumstances, but laches certainly doesn't require a plaintiff to sue the instant they know about an infringement as a general rule.

Abandonment of copyright is a pretty gray area, and I'd be surprised if that claim went anywhere. Pretty much the only reliable way I know of to demonstrate that somebody has abandoned their copyright is for them to execute a writing that says "I hereby abandon my copyright and place it in the public domain."

Thanks for the responses. I do want GW to win this, but only because of the seeming arrogance of their naming standards for their products. I like their new Scorpion Championess; I like it even more because they aren't trying to directly rip off GW names.

I think it'll be interesting to see how it all plays out but, IMO, the last thing we need are a bunch of subpar studios making GW knockoffs and being overly ambiguous about whether or not they're directly associated with GW.