You're arguing details, semantics and legalities, while it's completely clear that lots of content in SC:O is derived (or just straight-up copied) from SC2. Which you shouldn't do if you don't have rights to the IP nor the original creators' blessing. I've no idea how it will be settled in courts, or whether Stardock manages to evade consequences or not, but the basic principle seems perfectly clear in this case.

Splitting the hyperspace example into details until they're too small to matter individually, ignoring the bigger picture, and trying to arrive at the conclusion of "we're not infringing SC2" is a huge exercise in mental gymnastics.

That letter...I was always on Brad's side, but now I know why his confidence is so high. Design/idea/concept/format/layout is 100% what Toys For Bob is pointing out with the chart they recently released. None of it, based on this letter from the copyright office to their lawyer, is basis for a claim.

If it was, then Blizzard could've been sued for Warcraft being too much like Dune II all those years ago, and Microprose could've put a claim in against Brad for Galactic Civilizations being too much like Civilization and Master of Orion. It's simply a road that we as gamers don't want to go down (if so, then Star Control would never have been made, because it's essentially a fancier version of Spacewar!).

This isn't just a game thing. In a previous job, a client licensed our software, copied the design and functionality over the next year, (including asking us how things operated at a low level in the program ans using it to make design/coding decisions).  Then dropped us and announced their product after scraping their data in the middle of the night.

Anyway, we had NO copyright claim.   

No fear of that....not until the Darwin Awards cull the morons...

No, that is not what the judge ruled at all.

And barely 1 year has passed in the case.

All the judge did during the injunction hearing is deny stardock the ability to prevent DMCA takedowns. They said stardock broke the status quo by releasing the game with ongoing proceedings yet to be resolved.

However, now that the DMCA has been used, Stardock are fully entitled to publish a DMCA takedown if Reiche and Ford release their precursors game. 

DMCA notices are issued under the penalty of perjury, which is why dodgy and poor DMCA notices never go to court as the issuer would be in trouble. They have to issue the notice in the knowledge that they own the copyrighted material. 

Next step

Most likely Stardock will issue a counter notice claiming that the DMCA notice was done in error. This then puts the next step back on to R&F as they traditionally have 10 days to decide if they will contest the DMCA notice in court. If the DMCA notice is not contested at huge expense, we are probably talking a $100,000 or more, then the item can be returned to the store. If it goes to court then a judge will have to view the complaint in detail. However, as you have to make the DMCA claim and counter claim under the belief that you own the copyright, whoever loses will be subject to damages, potentially all court fees for the other side and a right royal mess ensues.

This is why most copyright cases are dealt with via settlement before court begins because losing is expensive and could lead to bankruptcy, job losses etc and can be crippling. 

There is currently too much emotion between both sides for a mediated settlement to work as the case is driven by a desire to be right. Same way divorce proceedings get messy because one party feels wronged or felt invested in the marriage more than the other. Hopefully something can be settled out of court, though it is very disappointing to know that people are losing jobs over this, just after Xmas when we all know life is tough for a couple of months. 

My thoughts are with those who lose employment as they are the ones who have suffered the most and have to find their feet again, no matter what you think of either party. 

The trademark never could have reverted to P&F in the first place. This is one of the nonsensical pieces of FUD that their initial PR campaign threw out there that continues to cause confusion and the like and that their supporters continue to latch onto in search of something that can be used to justify P&F's legal position. Every single piece of legal documentation that describes the agreement between Accolade and P&F make damn clear that P&F never had claim to the trademark. Indeed the licensing agreements explicitly note the trademark itself is excluded from any IP rights that P&F might possess from the games. And frankly every time anyone on either side makes the suggestion that the trademark ownership might be in question, were I Brad, I'd be tempted to tack on another zero onto the settlement I'd want extracted from P&F for trying to do an end-run around IP law. At this point I'm starting to feel that P&F need to be made statuary examples of how not to attempt to handle an IP dispute, much as the SCO Group (the irony abounds) was made an example of by Novell and IBM over the stupid Linux copyright suit.

How many of you enjoy Stardew Valley?  I certainly do!  It reminds me of (gasp!) Harvest Moon.  It has dating, it has farming, it has ranching, and it has magic.  In fact, the gameplay is more or less the same as Back to Nature or any of the more recent Harvest Moon games (except with better introduction and treatment of adult themes such as where children come from and substance abuse).  But the mechanics are definitely identical at certain levels in terms of tool use and how crops work.  That is a unique idea, but alone, I do not think that should be copyrighted on its own.

I would have a problem with SC:O if Stardock literally went into the source code of UQ:M or SC2, downloaded it, and pasted it into SC:O.  That direct form of source code copying is blatantly IP problematic and there are actually a fair amount of issues from the other SCO (the Unix-Linux controversy).  I also would have had a problem if the game was a literal retouching of the SC2 game (basically bringing the SC2 into modern graphics and hardware standards) without some idea of how the copyright worked.

But if that's what PR III and FF are claiming as exclusive, I really don't want them to win, not just because of the particular case, but I like variations on a theme.  If mechanics and graphics were that tightly coupled, we would have never seen DOTA (as they are literal ripoffs of Warcraft III offending all the categories above) or its descendants.  

I don't understand the IP law involved, but if this is it, I really hope that:

1.  The claim is not that specious, there has to be more to it and if not, that's real barratry on their part.

2.  I don't want method or resemblance to be copyrightable as it would shut down variations on a main theme (4X, Farming Simulator, Rail Shooter) that I don't want to contemplate.  

By the way, that is not to say that I don't have issues with SC:O as a founder, I do, and it's posted on the Boards with the bug posts and frustration about certain directions not being possible without prior knowledge and of exploration not being rewarding enough in the near sectors (the bugs especially the rushed beta issues of the 1.0 release which the 1.2 release should have been the shipping version which hopefully will be a development studio after action lesson for next time).  

But really at the end of the day, I want to see more in the SC universe.  We have waited too long for a game since SC3, and I would like to follow this universe to a narrative end, especially, what does happen to the Alliance given SC3's ending?

Except mechanics are not copyrightable, or else Star Control 1 and 2 could be held liable for stealing its look and feel from Spacewar! So if mechanics/look/feel is the basis for Fred and Paul's claim, they're being very hypocritical.

No one is claiming that Stardock hasn't made a game is that is very much like Star Control. But many of are saying this isn't an actionable offense. 

You're not convinced?  Did you read the judgement of the copyright office in the first post in this thread?  They said only source code and audiovisual material (art assets) are copyrightable not game design.

Stardock did not steal SC source code and Stardock did not steal or exactly copy audiovisual material from SC.  I agree that red hyperspace looks very similar on the surface, but it is different.  Same game design but DIFFERENT art assets.  The biggest difference is that SCO hyperspace is isometric not top-down like SC and the second biggest difference is SCO hyperspace shows entire star systems and 3D spaceship models instead of the primitive black dots used in SC.  The HUD is also different.

Intellectual property in legal terms has some very clear demarcations. An idea is not an intellectual property unless the law specifically grants protections and privileges for it, it's why it's called "property" in the first place, to designate recognized legal ownership and the privileges associated. The copyright office itself sent in its assessment of some of P&F's claims, wherein they noted that gameplay mechanisms are not copyrightable, so this isn't just some random opinion of people on the internet, it's the government office that actually has to accept an attempt to register a copyright. If they're not willing to, unless P&F want to sue the US government to try to overturn that decision, none of the "ideas" that they've listed as SCO also making use of have copyright protection.

Furthermore, copyright by its definition under the law does NOT cover methods and means. That's the purview of patents. Different types of intellectual property are not interchangeable, and since there does not exist a patent that tries to encapsulate the methods by which gameplay is implemented a SC-style game (and good luck trying to get such a patent approved in the wake of the more stringent review process), the gameplay mechanisms have no legal protections.

That P&F might have come up with some original ideas for their SC games is a given (insomuch as they also obviously took inspiration from games that came before them). That does not mean all of their ideas receive legal protection.

SCO isn't in the same universe as SC2. It's in a different universe. Stardock has the trademark of star control.