(Emphasis mine)

the test is called "Substantial Similarity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantial_similarity):

There's not a lot of solid case law here, but you can see some previous cases explored over at: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/187385/clone_wars_the_five_most_.php.

You can see from examples like Yeti Town, that completely different art assets, and a different UI layout, wasn't distinct enough. Conversely, Meteors was basically just a modernization of Asteroids, and it was protected.

Except that Mickey Mouse has a whole lot of protection on it that isn't on the Star Control property.

And I also would say that they did not remake Star Control 2. It's in the same family, and uses similar design concepts, but it isn't the same game. And I'm sure Stardock will press that point very hard if this makes it to court.

And yes, I 100% agree that this wouldn't have gotten so out of hand if the parties hadn't gotten frustrated with each other.

Reminder:

This went to court.

Court determined not-infringing.

Kotaku write up on this that came out this past week: https://kotaku.com/the-fighting-game-capcom-tried-to-get-pulled-from-arcad-1831460432 

Not infringing:

But according to Reiche and Ford this infringes:

Brad is the one who said it is in a different universe, not me.

You should deploy an update that changes the color of hyperspace to green, or blue.  Not because you have to, but just to turn the knife a little.

I hope Paul and Fred Ford win this battle. Star Control Origins had a junky story. It's a pale shadow to the glory that was SC2 in terms of storytelling, intricacy, and depth. Stardock had 25 years of game development, experience, computing and graphical improvements to draw on since SC2 came out and they still couldn't put out a game that matches up much less improves on the original. Doesn't matter how much Brad and his people were fans of the original game. They just don't got the juju. They don't understand what makes a good story. Don't understand the nuances of what creates an enjoyable game experience. Literally all they did was create a new engine from scratch to recreate what SC2's game engine did, and then brought in a slob to write the story. Shame on you guys. And shame on the US legal system if they don't judge in favor of Paul and Fred. 

[Really dumb comment suggesting he knows more because he has more money than Jafo removed]

Star Control 2 had a decent story, but it wasn't this amazing, original titan that certain people seem to "remember" it as.  It was a hodgepodge of tropes and 4th wall violations.  

Don't get me wrong, I loved it as a kid.  But...  I was a kid.  I viewed it as a kid.  I'm an adult now and, seeing it as an adult, I can also pick up its flaws.

I enjoyed SCO's story.  Like many sci-fi stories, it took bits and pieces of other stories and meshed them together to make something new.  I think they did very well in that regard (as did many others, judging from the actual reviewers).  My main complaint is that they didn't necessarily flesh things out enough.  I suppose they're leaving that open to future games though.  

As an American, I'm glad our legal system doesn't follow mob mentality from people who don't grasp what the laws are.  

It's always entertaining to see what's happening in Fantasy Land.  All this Science Fiction [gaming] and people end up existing in Alternate Universes....

I agree, I would guess that this DMCA was on the advice of their lawyers rather than something they insisted on. 

In the parallel universe where the initial dispute was settled relatively amicably without lawyers, I doubt they'd have any problem with Origins being this close to SC2.

Stardock thought they had the licence to sell SC1+2 and were giving P&F royalties for those sales.

P&F said the licence expired in 2000 because supposedly SC1+2 stopped being sold for a while.

The end result is nobody is selling SC1 or SC2 now except as used games, and that's really P&F's fault for choosing not to licence it.  In my opinion P&F are trying to choke Stardock into submission until they stop making Star Control games, because of that and the following:

You are right P&F showed good faith about the trademark going forward, but P&F did worse things after their typo.  P&F wanted to search all of SCO for any copyright infringement.  That copyright search started out reasonable, but became too much of a good thing.  Stardock renaming Super Melee to Fleet battles and not having any SC2 ships in multiplayer was reasonable, and P&F still issued a vague DMCA to the SCO beta, which Stardock blocked with the injunction to delay the takedown to after the SCO release date.  Brad challenged P&F on Twitter to stop being vague about what the DMCA was claiming about copyright infringement and P&F said hyperspace being similar and calling the flagship "Vindicator" was infringing.

P&F's side of the argument: https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com

Stardock's side of the argument (including rebuttals to dogarandkazon): https://www.stardock.com/games/starcontrol/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred

Stardock's rebuttal to the similar hyperspace and naming the flagship "Vindicator" argument: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxKR37BXQAAN1Vr?format=jpg&name=large

Please let me know if you have more questions.

"Reviving the Star Control franchise" is not a task someone gave Stardock to do. Stardock simply decided to take it on themselves. According to P&F, P&F were planning to do it themselves in the future (GotP, 25th anniversary, etc).

Again I find it funny that Stardock (or Stardock fans) think P&F are "stealing Stardock's thunder", while Stardock made what is essentially a wannabe Star Control 2. I wouldn't call any of this stealing anyone's thunder, but surely Stardock is riding the wave of P&F's work more than P&F are abusing SC:O.

In my opinion there could be lots of mutual benefit, and not "stealing", if it wasn't for the hostility.

Actually, P&F have never implied they want to give away the IP. They were very clear starting from the very first email and every email from thereon, that they want to keep the IP for themselves. Stardock then buying trademarks, making SC:O, etc. is something they just decided to do anyway, without P&F:s blessing.

I got the impression that P&F might've let it slide regardess, and let SC:O be SC:O, if it weren't all of the legal mess Stardock started. And Stardock started the legal mess only because of the GotP announcement. Which seems like an incredibly stupid thing to do.

If I'm wrong in all this, and you think the events went differently, feel free to educate me.

Anyway, I've read all the emails that are publicy available, and I haven't found any indication whatsoever that P&F would like to sell or give away the IP, or work with Stardock in any other way. Every time Wardell asked for things like that, P&F politely but very clearly refused.

This is just a guess, but maybe Stardock thought they were buying something more for that 300-400k from the Atari bankruptcy sale (maybe the IP or whatnot), when they in fact only bought the trademark. And maybe that's one reason for everything that followed.