At long last, Reiche and Ford state what they think they own.

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

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.

I know you read the emails, but you really need to read both P&F's blog and all of the Stardock Q&A. Stardock's Q&A says P&F are the ones who first brought lawyers in (see first quoted paragraph and the crazy stuff that follows) and Stardock's trademark lawsuit came after (see last quoted paragraph):

Stardock Q&A: "...

Paul and Fred's attorney contacts Stardock's CEO. This is the first time lawyers have been involved. Lawyers take over. (October)

Paul and Fred begin to demand that Stardock begin policing the Star Control community for fan art that they believe violates their rights (including members of this forum and on Steam). (October)

Paul and Fred begin demanding the removal of features from Star Control: Origins including the ship designer (a feature that has been part of Stardock's games for over a decade). (October)

Paul and Fred begin demanding insider builds of Star Control: Origins for inspection and begin insisting various broad features are their property despite having no right to do so. (October)

Paul and Fred reject numerous attempts to create a co-existence agreement that would permit Ghosts of the Precursors to go forward independently. (November)

Paul and Fred insist they have the right to associate their game with Stardock's trademarks including referring to their game as the "true" sequel to Star Control. (November) (Note: whether P&F actually said "direct sequel" or "true sequel" I don't really care. It was an unfortunate typo that P&F corrected, then they showed good faith about the trademark going forward. But oh boy P&F really went overboard about their copyright and their vague DMCA. As far as I can tell Stardock's trademark lawsuit and P&F's DMCA are now both being covered by the same court case and I trust the court to make the right decision about the trademark and the DMCA.)

Paul and Fred demand that the DOS games be removed from distribution while still providing no evidence to support their claim that the agreement had expired. (November)

Paul and Fred begin to make public defamatory blog posts and tweets about Stardock. (December) (NOTE: I don't know about Twitter, but my best guess is this refers to dogarandkazon. For example P&F: "We tried to be reasonable and settle the problem quietly, but now after months of debate we are flat out mad!" Compared to Stardock's claim: "Paul and Fred reject numerous attempts to create a co-existence agreement that would permit Ghosts of the Precursors to go forward independently. (November)")

Paul and Fred file DMCA notices against Steam and GOG not just for Star Control 1 and 2 but also Star Control 3 which Stardock holds the federally registered copyright for and that Paul and Fred had no involvement in. (December)

Stardock's attorneys file a suit against Paul and Fred for trademark infringement and other causes of action. (December)

..."

That's just a taste, please read the rest of the Stardock Q&A

Successfully updated karma reason!

Rhonin_the_wizard

Join Date 10/2009

+188

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 76

Note: whether P&F actually said "direct sequel" or "true sequel" I don't really care. It was an unfortunate typo that P&F corrected, then they showed good faith about the trademark going forward.

It wasn't a typo, they referred to it both as direct sequel and true sequel. Plus they used the boxart for Star Control II, which was always the property of the publisher.

Plus there is this

And this, look at what the tweet they retweeted says.

And here's what the Agreement between Paul Reiche and Accolade said regarding ownership of trademarks. And before someone states that the agreement is no longer valid, read the last line.

Finally, if they would have simply agreed to stop associating Ghosts of the Precursors with Star Control without a license to the trademark this would not have gone to court. Instead they started making demands on Star Control: Origins, like to remove the ship editor and other things.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 76

Paul and Fred file DMCA notices against Steam and GOG not just for Star Control 1 and 2 but also Star Control 3 which Stardock holds the federally registered copyright for and that Paul and Fred had no involvement in. (December)

Star Control 3 uses numerous copyrighted material from P&F. You can read the exact contract for yourself in the court documents: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/71/3/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/

Or just read the back of the box, which states that the characters were created by P&F, and used under license.

That's a bit more than "no involvement"

---

[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard"]

Plus they used the boxart for Star Control II, which was always the property of the publisher.

[/quote]

I'm not sure that Stardock bought any rights to such art assets - didn't the bankruptcy auction only list the original material in SC3 plus the trademark?

It's certainly less clear-cut than Stardock's use of the original Star Control 2 Orz and Yehat art in their marketing for SC:O. Stardock has even used screenshots from SC2/UQM in their trademark filings.

---

[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard"]

And here's what the Agreement between Paul Reiche and Accolade said regarding ownership of trademarks.

[/quote]

That applies solely to trademarks registered by Accolade, which include: "Star Control"

I do believe that's the end of the list.

P&F have never claimed rights to any other registered trademark. It's far, far too late for Stardock to register any further trademarks, since basically everything else was already used in the Ur-Quan Masters project 15 years ago, and any hypothetical "implied" trademark would have long since expired due to the failure of Accolade/Atari to pursue that rather large "infringement"

Successfully updated karma reason!

Rhonin_the_wizard

Join Date 10/2009

+188

Quoting GMOrz,

reply 78

I'm not sure that Stardock bought any rights to such art assets - didn't the bankruptcy auction only list the original material in SC3 plus the trademark?

From 11.4 of the Agreement.

Some marketing material was sent over to Stardock after it acquired the Star Control IP.

Quoting GMOrz,

reply 78

It's certainly less clear-cut than Stardock's use of the original Star Control 2 Orz and Yehat art in their marketing for SC:O. Stardock has even used screenshots from SC2/UQM in their trademark filings.

The Orz and Yehat were used on the Star Control website, which also had links to Star Control I & II. Brad told Paul Reiche that Stardock had acquired publishing rights 4 years ago and he did not dispute that fact.

Quoting GMOrz,

reply 78

That applies solely to trademarks registered by Accolade, which include: "Star Control"

Did you not see where they used the Star Control trademark in their announcement?

Successfully updated karma reason!

When are they going to admit that they just stole the SFU and our reputation? And before any of you defend those liars, plagiarists and thieves without even knowing what you are talking about, think about the people's lives you are helping people like Paul & Fred, and the worthless scumbags who made Master of Orion, to steal and destroy with you careless speech that is denied too us... in many cases the real-world military game designers.

Hey, incompetent computer game industry morons... have you ever even HEARD of the true "height of game and simulation design"? What already lies far distantly beyond my "Rube" and for which Rube is just a powerful framework and structure to work within?? The fusion of game theory and advanced mathematics known as "Grand Master Wizardry"??? Of course you haven't, because you are all completely incompetent toy makers, not simulation designers. "Grand Master Wizardry" is what happens when you ask the Albert Einstein types to do "magic tricks" for you with game design and math... and it can appear for all the world to be "magic" or "alien" to the average person, until Al turns around and shows you how it works on a blackboard.

Combined with my "Rube"... You people really are arrogant moronic toy makers who should just finally acknowledge your betters after all of these years. You aren't even in our league, and almost everything you do you stole from us... and is 250 years behind us. Welcome back to reality, toy makers!!!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hi all!

Quoting Rhonin_the_wizard,

reply 77

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 76

Note: whether P&F actually said "direct sequel" or "true sequel" I don't really care. It was an unfortunate typo that P&F corrected, then they showed good faith about the trademark going forward.

It wasn't a typo, they referred to it both as direct sequel and true sequel. Plus they used the boxart for Star Control II, which was always the property of the publisher.

Plus there is this

Reduced 61%

Original 1887 x 525

Reduced 61%

Original 1893 x 370

And this, look at what the tweet they retweeted says.

Finally, if they would have simply agreed to stop associating Ghosts of the Precursors with Star Control without a license to the trademark this would not have gone to court. Instead they started making demands on Star Control: Origins, like to remove the ship editor and other things.

Also worth noting that Brad Wardell himself helped get the word out that GotP was a true sequel to SC2 prior to changing his tune once the Stardock lawsuit was filed. His optimistic forum post was covered by several news outlets:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/

Then changing his tune when they sued P&F and edited his post from:

"Recently, Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (i.e. Star Control III is not canon for that universe)"

to

"Recently, Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to their Ur-Quan story."

https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors

For a party to allege the trademark infringement in a single announcement so damaging, that at one point Stardock demanded USD 225k and the complete surrender of any SC-related copyrights, you better not echo the same announcement with so much optimism.

Successfully updated karma reason!

What does any of that have to do with P&F's lies, theft, and plagiarism of the SFU and the reputations of those who created it?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Daiwa

Join Date 07/2001

+351

After reading through this thread, I find great comfort in not being a gamer. Not that being so is a bad thing.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

tingkagol, P&F called in lawyers, started a PR campaign, DMCAed, and went copyright crazy first (I already mentioned overreaching copyright examples from the Stardock Q&A of P&F requesting policing community fanart and asking the ship designer (no ship designer was in SC2 so HOW do they justify?) be removed, etc.). Stardock then sued for "trademark infringement and other causes of action" because they couldn't take that shit anymore. Not just the trademark, which unfortunately has to be defended or be lost (the court will decide if trademark was infringed), also the "other causes of action" that I just gave you examples of. P&F hid in their "peace offer" all that crazy, overreaching copyright shit because P&F truly believe their copyrights cover more than they actually do. I might personally be forgiving about the trademark, but in my opinion P&F is using overreaching copyright and a PR campaign to choke Stardock.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 84

tingkagol, P&F called in lawyers, started a PR campaign, DMCAed, and went copyright crazy first (I already mentioned overreaching copyright examples from the Stardock Q&A of P&F requesting policing community fanart and asking the ship designer (no ship designer was in SC2 so HOW do they justify?) be removed, etc.). Stardock then sued for "trademark infringement and other causes of action" because they couldn't take that shit anymore.

The question is why did P&F get lawyers?

Simple answer: Because Stardock believes the 1988 agreement between Reiche and Accolade did not expire.

That is why Stardock sold the classic games on Steam and GOG without Reiche's permission and that is why Stardock believes GotP can't be made without Stardock's permission... and that is why P&F felt their copyrights were threatened and had to defend it at all costs. Personally, I think the agreement has expired based on the conditions in the contract, but Stardock says otherwise. That is the main contention and should be decided by the courts.

While the court hearing is still nowhere near the horizon, both parties have taken drastic measures to protect their IPs, but more so with Stardock by claiming P&F don't really own any of those copyrights despite having stated in the past that P&F indeed owned those copyrights and played with fire by including "non-infringing" aliens in SCO that used familiar names from SC2 and planned future DLCs for supposedly non infringing Arilou and Chenjesu. Why put SCO at risk at all when P&F have repeatedly warned them not to use the classic aliens? Because Stardock believes the 1988 agreement is still in effect.

As for the supposed magnitude of the damages caused by Reiche's alleged trademark infringement in the GotP announcement, see my previous post.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Frogboy

Join Date 03/2001

+2422

Quoting tingkagol,

reply 85

both parties have taken drastic measures to protect their IPs, but more so with Stardock

Are you out of your mind? They are literally trying to claim that they own parts of Star Control: Origins. Perhaps you should stay on the reddit dumpster fire.

They DMCA'd a shipping game that resulted in multiple people being temporarily laid off based on believing that they OWN hyperspace. Kindly take your bullshit elsewhere.

+4

Successfully updated karma reason!

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

That is why Stardock sold the classic games on Steam and GOG without Reiche's permission

SC1 and SC2 were sold on GOG in 2011 before Stardock got the trademark in 2013. P&F say that they had a direct agreement with GOG to sell, not Stardock, and therefore Stardock should not have sold on Steam. Well fine, what's the problem with getting a "mutually beneficial" agreement with Stardock too? Stardock was already paying royalties for what they were selling. P&F did the opposite, they revoked the GOG distribution agreement.

"2011-04: Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[190]"

2013-01: Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[198]

2013-07: Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[199]

2017-10-06: Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "you are continuing to receive royalties", and suggest working on a "mutually beneficial release plan".[219]

"In October of this year, history repeated itself when Stardock began selling our games on Steam and elsewhere (even bundled with theirs), again without getting our permission. This time we couldn't come to an agreement, so we asked that Stardock stop bundling and selling the games. They refused, so we've decided to end our 2011 distribution agreement with GOG as a first step to having the games pulled down."

and that is why Stardock believes GotP can't be made without Stardock's permission

Stardock NEVER claimed copyright on GotP, only telling P&F to STOP associating GotP with the trademark "Star Control" (an alternative would be calling GotP a sequel to "The Ur-Quan Masters"). Guess what? P&F EDITED THEIR POST to do that because they knew they F'd up.

"Well, the stars have finally aligned -- we are now working on a direct sequel to Star Control II® -- The Ur-Quan Masters, called Ghosts of the Precursors™."

"Well, the stars have finally aligned -- we are now working on a direct sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters, called Ghosts of the Precursors™."

Did P&F learn their lesson? No, because this happened (By the way they inacurrately called Stardock's lawsuit a "copyright lawsuit" instead of what it actually is, a "trademark lawsuit". Told you P&F were crazy about the copyrights.):

"Paul and Fred's PR firm targets Stardock CEO, Brad Wardell personally on Twitter for abuse with an inflammatory and completely inaccurate social media post. (March)"

I told you that Stardock just couldn't take their shit anymore, it's not just about the trademark it's also about the "other causes of action". P&F wanted Stardock to police fan art and remove the ship designer and asked for game builds to get control about what was in or not in SCO.

Where are you getting these ideas?

Successfully updated karma reason!

That Reddit dumpster fire is so easy to put out... you saw me do it. Twice. Crickets... That's why they have to ban me, so that the raging fire can erupt again in the absence of logic. On Reddit it is, obviously, the moderators who are intentionally keeping the fire burning. Just look at the times I took over their forum and kept the discussion on the actual relevant subject and the propagandists had nothing to say or couldn't say it if they tried. The moderators on Reddit have to ban me from speaking to keep their fire of lies and propaganda going, if they let me speak nothing but the truth gets told and that's not what they want.

Of course, they ERASED THE ENTIRE THREAD last time, so you can't even see their example. It crushed them so badly they have to actually ERASE & HIDE their shame and disgrace. Maybe people should be demanding, for the sake of truth, that it be restored at least to read only status... even if there will still be no free speech in America in the game business.

...because they are fascist scum and have proven that many times over now. With free speech I ***ALWAYS*** humiliate them AS A GROUP. AS MANY OF THEM AGAINST ME ALONE AS THEY WANT!!!

I am coming back to GameDev.Net soon, cowards on GD.Net, just to find someone to make Space Hockey with... saying ANYTHING I WANT that is PG-13 and family friendly. I bet you are too cowardly to not ban me like the fascists we all know that you are, I bet ALL OF YOU TOGETHER can't handle me alone in an American forum with free speech. Because you are talentless hacks, plagriasists, cowards and thieves and you have been proving it over and over again for over 30 years now. Right?

We'll see in a couple weeks... I bet you just ban me like the fascist cowards everyone knows that you are now...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Free speech... and I am the "nice guy". "The Comedian". You people would think that Philip J Klass were the devil come back too life... and he was "Mr. Science" himself. Don't you people think of yourselves as "Engineers"... you are actually supposed to be on Deano's side here...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xxQs34UMx4&index=3&list=RDBW-uwcaRvmw

Successfully updated karma reason!

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

Yeah I said on Reddit that P&F thought "from the start" that SCO infringed on their copyright. And then they said "I really don't think that's right"

It's hopeless.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Hello all.

SC1 and SC2 were sold on GOG in 2011 before Stardock got the trademark in 2013. P&F say that they had a direct agreement with GOG to sell, not Stardock, and therefore Stardock should not have sold on Steam. Well fine, what's the problem with getting a "mutually beneficial" agreement with Stardock too? Stardock was already paying royalties for what they were selling. P&F did the opposite, they revoked the GOG distribution agreement.

According to P&F they haven't received any royalties post 2001 hence rendering the 1988 agreement expired. I believe a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed at that point. The courts will decide on this contention soon.

Stardock NEVER claimed copyright on GotP, only telling P&F to STOP associating GotP with the trademark "Star Control" (an alternative would be calling GotP a sequel to "The Ur-Quan Masters"). Guess what? P&F EDITED THEIR POST to do that because they knew they F'd up.

Stardock didn't claim owning any of the copyrights. They claimed they had an active licensing contract for those copyrights.

As far as editing posts go, Brad Wardell also edited his echo post of the GotP "true sequel to SC2" announcement in this forum.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

According to P&F they haven't received any royalties post 2001 hence rendering the 1988 agreement expired.

That is what they said. It's unclear whether royalties resumed when SC1+2 was put on GOG in 2011 (anyway, Stardock claims to have paid royalties once they started selling the game), but it's true that if there was an interruption in royalties that might have caused the agreement to expire.

I believe a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed at that point.

No. P&F burned all classic game distribution bridges, even the one they already had with GOG that had nothing to do with Stardock:

"we have had our own direct distribution agreement with GOG since 2011 and no agreement with Stardock or Steam or anyone else ... we've decided to end our 2011 distribution agreement with GOG as a first step to having the games pulled down."

Stardock didn't claim owning any of the copyrights. They claimed they had an active licensing contract for those copyrights.

Stardock never said the distribution contract to publish SC1-3 that they thought they had, nor the IP inside of SCO would interfere with GotP's publication in any way, only the stupid stuff P&F, their lawyers, and their PR campaign were doing online and through emails: "trademark infringement and other causes of action". For example ... again ... P&F asked by email that the ship designer be removed from SCO (no ship designer was in SC2 so HOW is this justified?). Stardock not removing the ship designer was probably one of the reasons P&F issued the DMCA. What was Stardock supposed to do? Give in to the copyright overreach choke attack? Sorry, this one's not a copyright overreach a better thing to call the ship designer claim is a copyright fantasy. That's not the only one, but I'm tired of repeating myself.

As far as editing posts go, Brad Wardell also edited his echo post of the GotP "true sequel to SC2" announcement in this forum.

I assume that trademarks can't be shared unless there is an agreement, and that agreement fell through.

Successfully updated karma reason!

DMCA is a notification that the author believes his copyright is being infringed. It serves the purpose of notifying the party involved and a base point for claiming damages should the infringement continue.

In most cases where there is a clear infringement the party notified will immediately stop distributing. Where they do not however, actual copyright infringement must be proven. When SCO Unix tried this approach against Linux, some paid up, some stopped distributing but most continued assessing for themselves that SCO's case was weak.

The fact that (I believe) Steam has recommenced distributing Star Control Origins would indicate that having undertaken their own review of the facts, they believe that the case against Stardock is weak.

Successfully updated karma reason!

If there are no sales of the game, the royalties due are zero. This does not constitute a cessation of payment of royalties, this would only be the case if there were sales made for which they were not paid. They were in fact paid the zero dollars due on zero sales.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 92

Quoting tingkagol,

I believe a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed at that point.

No. P&F burned all classic game distribution bridges, even the one they already had with GOG that had nothing to do with Stardock:

"we have had our own direct distribution agreement with GOG since 2011 and no agreement with Stardock or Steam or anyone else ... we've decided to end our 2011 distribution agreement with GOG as a first step to having the games pulled down."

That is what transpired. I'm saying a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed in 2001.

Quoting Prof_Hari_Seldon,

reply 92

Quoting tingkagol,

Stardock didn't claim owning any of the copyrights. They claimed they had an active licensing contract for those copyrights.

Stardock never said the distribution contract to publish SC1-3 that they thought they had, nor the IP inside of SCO would interfere with GotP's publication in any way, only the stupid stuff P&F, their lawyers, and their PR campaign were doing online and through emails.

Stardock stated P&F needed a licensing agreement to produce/release GotP because it will contain the classic SC copyrights - copyrights that Stardock claims they still have an active license for in the 1988 agreement.

https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png

Quoting Goresh,

If there are no sales of the game, the royalties due are zero. This does not constitute a cessation of payment of royalties, this would only be the case if there were sales made for which they were not paid. They were in fact paid the zero dollars due on zero sales.

I haven't heard this angle before. If this is true, then the 1988 agreement is effectively active forever.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Jafo

Join Date 03/2001

+1882

Quoting tingkagol,

reply 95

I haven't heard this angle before. If this is true, then the 1988 agreement is effectively active forever.

It would also take the wind out of the sails for pretty much everything you appear to be concerned about...

Maybe being influenced by the hysteria found on Reddit wasn't a clever move? ...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Prof_Hari_Seldon

Join Date 06/2010

+9

That is what transpired. I'm saying a NEW, mutually beneficial licensing contract for the classic games could have been possible if both parties agreed that the 88 agreement had lapsed in 2001.

P&F chose to not get off their asses to allow Stardock to have a new distribution license. That's it. Agreement about 2001 is not required. P&F want SC1-3 to not be sold.

Stardock stated P&F needed a licensing agreement to produce/release GotP because it will contain the classic SC copyrights - copyrights that Stardock claims they still have an active license for in the 1988 agreement.

P&F's PR firm have lied to us that Stardock's lawsuit was a copyright lawsuit too. Let me say again that Stardock's lawsuit was about "trademark infringement and other causes of action"

Stardock owns the trademark. They hope they also own the SC1-3 distribution rights. They NEVER said anything about blocking GotP because of copyright because Stardock knows they don't own the copyright; Stardock only claimed to have licence to USE the IP in sequels (this is not owning copyright), if that agreement is not expired due to unpaid royalties, and it's debatable if Stardock actually did use any of the SC2 IP at all.

The Stardock lawsuit was never about blocking GotP it was about defending SCO.

Successfully updated karma reason!

These are all really nice legal technicalities, but Paul & Fred should start with the true origins of it and work from there. In the 1970's in the world of gaming there was Franz Joseph, Lou Zocchi, and Steve Cole. That's where it all comes from, very obviously so in the case of some of the early games like Star Control, Master of Orion, and Rules of Engagement... very obviously not in some of the early games like Asteroids, Begin/Star Fleet 1, and Trade Wars. The SFU influence was always obvious too it's fans, even easily separated from Star Trek. The SFU is what took hold and lives on as the influence within the modern gaming world today, through its dominant early imitators like Star Control & Master of Orion over other non-SFU influenced games like Begin and Star Trek: Bridge Commander. Surprisingly, the "actual SFU" games (Star Fleet Command) were made so late, and by non-expert casual SFB fans, that they actually belong more in the "non-SFU influence" category than the early imitators like SCII & MOO.

Paul & Fred know this, and I know that they are not the only thing that has been preventing me from having any kind of resume for all these years. If they just start over from here, things will go a lot easier for everyone from this point forward. And they will help to correct a near great injustice of Stephen V Cole, probably the single most important figure in the history of modern game design, nearly being forgotten by the modern game industry. You eventually would have remembered Charles S Roberts, but SVC would have been forever lost too your industry and he is by far the most important and relevant too modern games. I think it is likely that more games today, both board games and computer games, can trace their heratige back to SVC than to either Charles Roberts or Gary Gygax. He really has been that influential, and that really is who is ultimately being harmed the most, ethically, by all of this.

This is all Stephen V Cole stuff, it really is...

Successfully updated karma reason!

It's the 1970's... Avalon Hill and their early imitators, D&D and their imitators, are the only "games" that exist other than the "family games" like Monopoly, Risk, & Life. Franz, Lou, & Steve are just beginning to do their thing... a "Foreign Technology Recovery Division" blueprint artist (Franz), a US Army Sergeant game designer (Lou), and the young new aspiring game designer/engineer/very serious military war college & intel student Stephen V Cole.

SVC revolutionizes Avalon Hill's comparatively primitive phased-turn "treadmill of time", and warp powers it for his "faster paced warp speed combat" without realizing that he has also created the third generation of "artificial time". He then also either introduces or popularizes, through his many games...

Mass-Based Proportional Movement

Energy Allocation & Distribution

Damage Allocation & Distribution

System Displays

Advanced Record Keeping & Fractional Accounting in Games for Entertainement

Tactical Intelligence, Targeting Systems & Electronic Warfare in Games

Integrated Game Systems Within A Single Game

Integrated Games Within A Single Game Universe

If I really wanted to think about it I am sure I could pretty easily come up with a half a dozen more detailed contributions like those first ones that are famously from SVC's signature "Flagship Game" Star Fleet Battles. SVC has made over 100 games during his career. SFB was the very first ever "real-time game" and it is best described as "space combat in slow motion, under a microscope". SFB's top "Rated Aces" and academic tacticians such as myself truly are among the best and most knowledgeable "Aerial Combat Maneuvering" strategists & tacticians in the world. We really and truly are, thanks too SVC and the real-world knowledge he and certain members of his staff bring too the discussion and game.

This is what makes SVC the most important too you of the designers who came before you, he was the "real-time guy". Stephen V Cole is the original pioneer in "real-time games". And I guess that is who I am. I am his disciple who was a game designer like him, not a programmer like the NWC guys or Graeme Bayless who was early SFB Staff and had a long career in your industry (...and who I once met at ORIGINS '91, Hi Graeme!!!).

So that is who is being obscured by this theft of our reputation, the SFB Staff, which as any of us will tell you is 95% Steve Cole's reputation.

So, Paul & Fred, just end this in a way that works for everyone including yourself. Even I, and I am guessing Brad Wardell and everyone at Stardock as well... would LOVE to see the continuation of YOUR story in YOUR version of this type of game. No offense to Stardock, and I'm sure they won't take any... I still like your story a lot better. Just like only I can tell my story, only Paul & Fred can tell Paul & Fred's story and everybody knows that. We all want to see you finish your story, it was the best story ever told by the game industry... because I still haven't got to tell them about Cindy yet!

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Jafo,

reply 96

Quoting tingkagol,

reply 95

I haven't heard this angle before. If this is true, then the 1988 agreement is effectively active forever.

It would also take the wind out of the sails for pretty much everything you appear to be concerned about...

True.

P&F must have been so stupid to sign a contract that would effectively bind their IP with the publisher forever- with those expiry conditions written specifically to fool them into thinking they got a pretty sweet deal. By the way, Atari acknowledged the expiry of the 1988 agreement back in 2011 when P&F first reached out to GOG - unless of course that was a ruse as well.

Successfully updated karma reason!