thegunny Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 (edited) Sunrise doesn't have a leg to stand on? Are you just stupid or something? He said may, not doesn't (big difference) so are you blind or something! Gee it would be nice to have a thread, any thread where the "I know more about HG lawsuits (or insert any other japanese company's name) than you do" experts flooded the boards with speculative crap Edited August 14, 2009 by thegunny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vostok 7 Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 He said may, not doesn't (big difference) so are you blind or something! Gee it would be nice to have a thread, any thread where the "I know more about HG lawsuits (or insert any other japanese company's name) than you do" experts flooded the boards with speculative crap I'd like a Battletech thread without childish flamebaiting and trolling, but I guess we can't all get what we want huh? Vostok 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 i got your warhammer right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangard Ace Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Gyah! What the hell is that thing?! At least put a searchlight on it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Payne Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 Sunrise doesn't have a leg to stand on? Are you just stupid or something? Do not, ever, call me, or anyone else in this forum, "stupid" again. Am I understood? If that is your idea of debate and discussion, throwing out ad-hominem attacks because you disagree, to Hades with you. I am not in the mood to brook that right now. I shall entertain your viewpoint on a matter, but I am not going to tolerate being slammed in a drive-by insult by someone who doesn't wish to take the time to actually make a comprehensive and thoughtful response. I gave my opinion, which may well be wrong -- I never claimed to be omniscient. I challenge you to put yours out there in a responsible and intellectually satisfying manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHATEYOU Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 i got your warhammer right actually that's a hammerhands. this is the reseen warhammer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big F Posted August 15, 2009 Share Posted August 15, 2009 At least those images dont make them look all that bad hope fully any reimages will be as good. Watch the flaming guys this thread could get some lockage action, which would be a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theplasticwerks Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Hopefully, in their excitement Catalyst Games didn't unintentionally restart a maelstrom of legal troubles in an unrelated situation again. Way to drop the ball, professionals. Most of the people at Catalyst, and in fact, right now any of the BattleTech/MechWarrior properties are headed by the same people that started the game or who have been with it for a long time; even Jordan Weisman worked on both the MechWarrior: Dark Age CMG as well as the upcoming MechWarrior game. Of course, there are a few new faces, but the universe and franchise have pretty much stayed in the same hands since its inception. CGL knew what they were getting into because they were there in the first place. Legalities have a way of sneaking up on you, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHATEYOU Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 looks like HG finally got a look at the previews for the new mechwarrior game. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1021437p1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfx Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 looks like HG finally got a look at the previews for the new mechwarrior game. http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1021437p1.html Stupid HG.... Why must they always do this??? And the Wrhammer doesn't look anything like a Tomahawk anymore....COME ON! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Having trouble finding it in the thread and would rather have it from someone here than some random off google. What is the deal with HG having any say in something from Battletech/Mechwarrior? I don't need a huge story but would appreciate it if someone could shed light or give me a solid link. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't need a huge story but would appreciate it if someone could shed light or give me a solid link. Thanks. FASA used designs from anime series like Dougram, Macross and Crusher Joe for their Battletech game that they didn't have the rights to. Harmony Gold believes they own the rights to the designs from the Macross series. An out of court settlement in the early 90s resulted in these designs being pulled from Battletech products, although apparently some of them appear in the newest Mechwarrior game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Thanks. ^^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whamhammer Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Meh. The players can choose to put more armor into their legs. If they just buffed standard/minimum leg armor in a patch it would have made it much less viable. The Warhammer got struck in the leg by the Atlas. Didnt do much though. Btw, I was too excited to notice the first time through. The date is 3015. Clans havent shown yet. No clan mechs for me Also, I cant believe that Warhammer pilot moved into the shroud... when it was pretty obvious an atlas moved into it a few seconds before =/. Collapsing buildings is pretty nice though.. However, I doubt it'd destroy a mech. You also notice that the Atlas is designated Atlas-C... which makes me believe that pre-built variants are in the game, and customization will be limited. That sucks. If they are going to do their leveling system, they should allow players to increase their skills in certain types of modification (ie. omnislot modification or left arm modification) so that the players can get a larger variety of what they can fit into a slot... or even introduce the possibility of fitting in something that is just slightly too big. Or just having the ability to fit a few more heatsinks/increase the effectiveness of existing heatsinks. Mech games should be all about customization. Atlas C couldve also been a detected designation because it mght have had a C-3 netqork master n it, I believe that was about the time the started doinking with that stuff, it was widespread by 3039 in House Purina (I mean Kurita, wrong game, lol ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whamhammer Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 My Lunchback will pwn you lol (aiming pie launcher) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einherjar Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) Mechwarrior 5 Runs Into Legal Trouble My question is what plans does HG have with those trademarks? Toys? They're not doing anything with them, unless this is all for money. Edited September 4, 2009 by Einherjar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiroikaze Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I wonder if this dick move will do more harm to HG than good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaiotheforsaken Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) I wont put much stock in HG getting a bug up their ass about this. Frankly, the mech in question may not even make it into the actual game, they may have just used very iconic mechs for the trailer. Secondly, the design may have deviated enough at this point that it wont matter. Hopefully this has little effect on the games release date or anything like that. Edited September 4, 2009 by kaiotheforsaken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the white drew carey Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Does anyone else find it amusing that, as far as we know, HG has sent a C&D letter to a website which is running the trailer for the game, and not the developers themselves who are making it? It sounds like the typical HG bluster and blather to try to make themselves relevant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 meh... it's just a bunch of companies fighting because none of them know how to design their own crap. How they are all still in business is beyond me, but I'm pretty sure it has something to do with fans settling for dreck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewie Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 (edited) At the end of the trailer it says "Some materials are owned and subject to copyright by Microsoft Corporation. Mechwarrior is the registered and unregistered trademark(s) of Microsoft Corporate in the United States and other jurisdictions." I think HG might have finally met a company they don't want f*ck with. Regardless of the legalities HG can or cannot raise, money always wins in the end. MS has proven that time and time again. Edited September 4, 2009 by Chewie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EXO Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Well that explains how one of them are still in business... lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gui Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What I thought exactly: this time may be the good one to put HG's nose back into their own poo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkenstein Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 FASA had the rights to the Macross designs when it contracted Studio Nue for the Japanese version of Battletech. Logically, one would think that getting the rights from the originator supersedes rights given to a tertiary entity. But the contract HG signed with Tatsunoko was a botched piece of crap that gave HG all SDF Macross merchandising and distribution rights permanently. BUT! merchandising and distribution rights do not include rights to derivative products , so technically HG cant stop MW5 from using the Warhammer design, since it isnt the same design of the Tomahawk. A court would probably see a vast difference, both in scale and structure of the two designs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VF5SS Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 FASA had the rights to the Macross designs when it contracted Studio Nue for the Japanese version of Battletech. NO THEY DID NOT They only had rights to market Nichimo Macross model kits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemax151 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I swear I read somewhere on Catalyst's own site(?) that they had contracted the original artists to redesign all the old unseen. So I have no idea how if they were redone completely new designs HG would have any way to sue them over it and I assume this may extend to the new Mechwarrior title as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Mechwarrior 5 Runs Into Legal Trouble My question is what plans does HG have with those trademarks? Toys? They're not doing anything with them, unless this is all for money. Shrug. It's not as if HG is in the big leagues or anything. Macross-related stuff may just comprise a significant percentage of their earnings, and they may rather not set a precedence in allowing others to "get away with it". They are fairly predictably annoying in the way they protect their assets though. At any rate, anyone knows anything more about the freeware MW4? Been waiting for it, seems like vapourware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangard Ace Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I hope they take HG to court over this. Just rewatched the full HD trailer and the arms and shoulders are designed differently. The chest and cockpit area are definitely boxier then the Tomahawk and the legs are different as well. IMO the difference is easily over 10% which I believe constitutes it as a new design. It's like the TV-SDF1 vs DYRL SDF1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Akilae Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I hope they take HG to court over this. Just rewatched the full HD trailer and the arms and shoulders are designed differently. The chest and cockpit area are definitely boxier then the Tomahawk and the legs are different as well. IMO the difference is easily over 10% which I believe constitutes it as a new design. It's like the TV-SDF1 vs DYRL SDF1. Somebody should tell Catalyst then, cause: http://battletech.catalystgamelabs.com/200...e-want-them-to/ They're not fighting it at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I hope they take HG to court over this. Just rewatched the full HD trailer and the arms and shoulders are designed differently. The chest and cockpit area are definitely boxier then the Tomahawk and the legs are different as well. IMO the difference is easily over 10% which I believe constitutes it as a new design. It's like the TV-SDF1 vs DYRL SDF1. Actually, I've been told that the 10% rule isn't as valid as we would like to think. From a guy who has to design and build scale miniatures for a living, but it's over the Internet, so take it for what it's worth. I've actually now have the 4 books of Catalyst Labs' re-released CBT. TBH, I've come to realise I'm not a big fan of the direction the board game is taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangard Ace Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Actually, I've been told that the 10% rule isn't as valid as we would like to think. From a guy who has to design and build scale miniatures for a living, but it's over the Internet, so take it for what it's worth. I've actually now have the 4 books of Catalyst Labs' re-released CBT. TBH, I've come to realise I'm not a big fan of the direction the board game is taking. What percentage does he say would it have to be because as I said it's easily 10%. I'm thinking more along the lines of 20-25% difference. Starting off the shoulder and elbow joints are different then the Tomahawk. The PPC guns are of a different design then the Tomahawks arm guns. The body is boxier and the cockpit does NOT have the “smiling frog” design of the Tomahawk. The upper legs are different as are the lower legs. The missile launcher appears to be bolted to the body and the search light is on the front of the mech. On the Tomahawk both are mounted by struts to the backpack and are further out from the body. If there are front and side tech drawings I’m positive that you can even tell the differences just comparing the silhouettes of the mechs. Somebody should tell Catalyst then, cause: http://battletech.catalystgamelabs.com/200...e-want-them-to/ They're not fighting it at all. I just registered there and told them to fight. I used the above comparison and hopefully they fight and win the use of their Warhammer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx7725 Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 What percentage does he say would it have to be because as I said it's easily 10%. I'm thinking more along the lines of 20-25% difference. Eh, let me look it up. Actually there were two persons, one apparently a copyrights lawyer, the other someone who works the business. The lawyer's commentory: Ummm, I'm a copyright lawyer in real life. In the U.S., the test is "substantial similarity" not direct copy. And deriving the new work from an old one doesn't help. Derivative works are also covered by the original copyright holder's rights. Interesting issue . . .. The other forumite's (B) initial response: If its a derivative work then it remains a copyright breach. The idea that you can take an original and change it by a magical X percent, is an urban myth, one propogated an awful lot on the internet sadly. The apparently lawyer responded in immediate response: That is correct. A derivative work (at least in the US) remains a infringement. For example, if I take an existing building and merely change the roof (even if I replace the entire thing with a brand new work), I have still infringed the original copyright. (Context was miniature buildings, not actual buildings.) Of course, this is the interwebs and I don't profess to be an expert. Personally, I think that 10% thing came about from the uni days, when we are too poor to afford textbooks. The rule-of-thumb is to photocopy no more than 10% of each book at a go, as that is the "magic %" before official-type people will make noise about copyright infringements. That's a direct reproduction of IP though, not derivative work, so there's probably differences in treatment. Assuming we go along with the above line of thought, is the Rewind 'Hammer a Tomahawk derivative? I got to say sufficiently similar in shape, size and geometry to fail the test. After all, we all went ga-ga and said it's an old-style Warhammer (i.e., Tomahawk). The Phoenix Reseens are redesigned heavily to be quite different although a few are still very borderline. But if I have to say, I'll say the Reseens are sufficiently different to constitute new designs, and hence pass the test. They're also butt-ugly, but that's not the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yellowlightman Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I love that everyone is letting their blind hatred of HG completely eclipse the fact that the rights owners of Battletech are entirely in the wrong. I don't care what you think about Robotech, ripping off someone else designs you didn't have the rights to is worse than whatever complaints you could lodge against HG for what they did with Robotech. Furthermore, while HG might be notorious apefaces when it comes to threatening to sue people, I absolutely fail to see how the current rights owners to Battletech/Mechwarrior would have any legal right to stand on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Einherjar Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 Starting off the shoulder and elbow joints are different then the Tomahawk. The PPC guns are of a different design then the Tomahawks arm guns. The body is boxier and the cockpit does NOT have the “smiling frog” design of the Tomahawk. The upper legs are different as are the lower legs. The missile launcher appears to be bolted to the body and the search light is on the front of the mech. On the Tomahawk both are mounted by struts to the backpack and are further out from the body. I don't really think HG cares about those specifics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dangard Ace Posted September 4, 2009 Share Posted September 4, 2009 I don't really think HG cares about those specifics. Probably not. I'm thinking more along the lines of if this: US Copyright Office Circular 14: Derivative Works notes that: A typical example of a derivative work received for registration in the Copyright Office is one that is primarily a new work but incorporates some previously published material. This previously published material makes the work a derivative work under the copyright law. To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself. Titles, short phrases, and format, for example, are not copyrightable. Can BT make the new Warhammer different enough to qualify as new work but have enough homages to the original Warhammer? I don't know as I too am not a copyright lawyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.