UPDATE: Make sure you read the official statement from Stardock regarding newer events.
Re: November's blog post by Paul and Fred claiming Stardock's objection to their new game being promoted as a "true sequel" constitutes Stardock preventing them from doing a new game.
We are disappointed that Paul and Fred, two people we have a great deal of respect and admiration for, have chosen to imply that we are somehow preventing them from working on their new game.
Stardock has been nothing but supportive of their new project and wish them the best. I personally made the post here on StarControl.com in support of it.
With regards to their contentions:
First, as many people know, the classic Star Control games have been available for sale long before Stardock acquired the rights from Atari four years ago. For the entirety of the time we have held the rights, they have been getting paid for those sales. If they had an objection to the games being sold this is something that could and should have been addressed before we were ever involved.
Second, we have stated, repeatedly and consistently for over four years that we are not using any of the aliens from the classic series. As we have stated, our position is that, to the best of our knowledge, the classic alien IP is owned by them.
We have also discussed, at length, why it wasn't commercially viable for us to attempt to continue or retell the Ur-Quan story. 25 years is just too long of a gap. This is one of the reasons why we have been so excited about Paul and Fred's project. Their game frees us to introduce new characters and a new story into the new Star Control while allowing fans of the classic series a way to continue the classic story. This strikes us as a win-win situation.
Lastly, when we acquired Star Control from Atari in 2013, many assets were transferred to us including the various publishing agreements to the Star Control franchise. The short version is that the classic IP is messy. We understand that this makes them "really really angry" but we weren't a party to that agreement. All we can do is try to put something together that releases them from the restrictions placed on their IP that they agreed to and transfer any and all rights and responsibilities to them. We want them to make Ghosts but we don't want any liability or association with it.
Given the disturbing and unanticipated post by Paul and Fred, we are persuaded more than ever that a clear and irrefutable document that makes it clear that we are not associated or involved with their new game is needed.
We have nothing but respect and admiration for Paul and Fred and wish them well in their new project.
Update 12/4/2017:
Paul and Fred continue to make unsubstantiated claims regarding the DOS-based Star Control games. If they have any documentation to provide evidence to their assertions, we have yet to see them.
Stardock, by contrast, possesses a perpetual, exclusive, worldwide licensing and sales agreement that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade that has Paul Reiche's signature along with a signed distribution agreement between Atari and GOG for the DOS Accolade Star Control games.
The tone of their blog posts is similar to the kind of correspondence they had with us since the announcement of their Ur-Quan Masters successor, vague, full of demands and without any documentation.
With all due respect to Paul and Fred, they really should talk to competent legal counsel instead of making blog posts.
Update 12/5/2017:
Dealing with the sales and distribution of 20+ year old DOS games is an unusual way to spend a Tuesday afternoon. Nevertheless...
Atari had transferred to Stardock a signed agreement between Atari's President and GOG that we assumed was the agreement. Paul and Fred claimed they were the ones who had set up the agreement and upon verification with GOG, we instructed them to terminate this agreement which they have which we appreciate.
The games are now correctly transferred to Stardock and we will continue to ensue that Fred and Paul receive royalty payments for the games per the publishing agreement. We apologize if anyone was inconvenienced.
Old IP can be messy to deal with. The best way to deal with that is to have the parties talk to each other (as opposed to making public Internet posts) and work something out. We remain committed to dealing with this situation with as much restraint and gentleness as possible.
Update 2/27/2018
Added link to https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred to address Paul and Fred's latest complaints.
At this stage, the parties are seeking to resolve their disagreements in court. Stardock wishes this could have been resolved otherwise.
For the record, if Paul and Fred had simply announced their game as a sequel to Ur-Quan Masters and requested Stardock to remove the DOS games from distribution, Stardock would have complied out of respect, even if we would have been unhappy that they chose now, after 25 years, to jump back in the middle of Stardock's efforts to bring Star Control back.
However, by promoting their new game as a "direct-sequel" to Star Control (and in other places as the "true" sequel) while using the Star Control box art (which is owned by Stardock) a great deal of consumer confusion has been created requiring Stardock to protect its IP rights.
Other links:
I think that one explanation is that P&F aren't pressing a claim to own the trademark; they're claiming nobody owns the trademark, because it was legally abandoned due to being out of use during that gap period.
If they had pressed an abandonment claim back then, I think they would have had a strong case, but I'm not sure how the passage of time, Stardock's purchase of whatever rights Atari had, and subsequent development of the game may have impacted the strength of their legal arguments.
I've done my own non-professional analysis of this mess at http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg76832#msg76832. The short version is that Paul R.'s contract with Accolade seems to give him a lot more control over the SC1&2 copyrights and distribution than most developers today have. Stardock did not seem to be aware of this when they purchased Atari's assets, and PR appears to have avoided setting the record straight about what he felt he owned up until the recent counterclaim.
Note the careful wording in PR's emails:
"I've talked with Fred and I am afraid at this time we aren't interested in the Star Control assets you purchased from Atari."
Stardock interpreted his lack of objection during this email thread as tacit acknowledgement of their claims. But PR never actually conceded that he agreed that Atari owned the copyright and distribution rights Stardock believed it paid for. It seems more like PR knew that his contract had returned those rights to him, but he chose, for whatever reason, not to correct Stardock's apparent misunderstanding.
So, at this point, my (non-lawyer) opinion is that Paul R. has the stronger legal case, certainly over everything but the trademark, and the trademark itself is shaky due to possible abandonment. However, I think Paul R. also bears responsibility for most of the drama, because he was not more forthcoming about exactly what he felt his rights were. Had he communicated more clearly - ideally before Stardock paid Atari in the first place - this could have been resolved more amicably.
As things stand now, I still hope that Paul and Brad can get together, with good lawyers, and hash out a settlement that keeps this out of litigation, and lets everyone get back to making the games we want to buy.
That had crossed my mind too when reading those emails. I noticed he simply said they weren't interested in buying what Stardock had acquired, not what it was they had had acquired. If that's what happened, it does seem like a silly thing to do - why would you want someone to labour under a misapprehension?
Anyway, I too hope this can be settled out of court.
I've thought of one possible rational explanation for keeping quiet on the trademark. Up until very recently, PR&FF were locked in to Skylanders; they weren't allowed to start work on a Star Control sequel. If they had argued successfully back then that the trademark had lapsed, then anyone could have made a game called Star Control and re-registered the trademark. If they hoped to eventually reclaim the trademark themselves, the rational thing for them to do was to remain quiet on any question of it having lapsed until they were in a position to claim it themselves.
But while that might provide a justification for not talking about the trademark, it still would not explain their failure to clarify their contract rights. I'm at a loss to explain that.
Thanks for clearing things up about the trademark. I was so confused about it prior to your post.
I'm especially keen on noticing PR's wording and refusal to divulge critical info that Stardock was entering into a bad deal with Atari. But who could blame PR when Brad repeatedly stated that Stardock would not touch SC1-2 aliens and the Ur-Quan lore - the only difference being Stardock's perspective was out of respect for PR&FF (which was noble, albeit misinformed) while PR&FF knew Stardock couldn't do so because of the legal ramifications.
To me it always sounded more like SC:O will start their own parallel lore and new races because they didn't have consent or participation from Paul and Fred, which to me sounds like Stardock were well aware that they didn't have the rights to the aliens from SC1&2, not just some misplaced sense of "oh we aren't worthy to include these races in our game without a blessing from Dogar and Kazon".
I'm not implying that Stardock doesn't respect Paul and Fred, I just don't think this was the one and only reason for their design of SC:O.
To me it always sounded more like SC:O will start their own parallel lore and new races because they didn't have consent or participation from Paul and Fred, which to me sounds like Stardock were well aware that they didn't have the rights to the aliens from SC1&2, not just some misplaced sense of "oh we aren't worthy to include these races in our game without a blessing from Dogar and Kazon".I'm not implying that Stardock doesn't respect Paul and Fred, I just don't think this was the one and only reason for their design of SC:O.
Stardock’s position during all that time was that Paul owned all the characters and lore in SC2. And while Stardock had a license to use them, it wouldn’t because Paul asked they not be used. The hope was that Paul and Fred would one day return to their story.
There were other reasons as well not to including the royalty requirement. As discussed in the countersuit, Stardock requested to negotiate the use of the ships in SC2 for SCO super melee. While it could have used those ships, it would have had to pay the royalty listed in the agreement which was much higher than what Stardock wanted to pay just for the ships. Thus, the attempt to negotiate a narrower license.
The problem with people playing Internet lawyer is that they usually don’t know the law and presume that they have access to more than a fraction of the relevant material.
Yeah that makes sense, royalties would be a good reasoning for avoiding the lore races.
And agreed on the Internet lawyer thing, as someone that has actually been taken to court and had to deal with months and months of lawyer vs lawyer written arguments, I know that the legal situation might not even resemble the logical situation as seen from the outside.
I don't make any judgements on who is in the right or wrong on this, I just wish it didn't have to get ugly.
IMHO that wasn't an unreasonable position, given what you knew at that time. The question now, I think, is whether Stardock's position on this has changed, now that Paul has revealed the contract with Accolade that appears to show that Atari's license had expired prior to Stardock's purchase of its assets.
That is what the lawyers will determine.
I will say that, for the record, as a non-lawyer, it would have been enough for me to order the games removed before Paul and Fred began promoting their new game as a sequel to Star Control and making broad claims on what else they think they own.
This is why I practically begged them to talk to me before any of this got into the hands of lawyers. Once litigation begins, the lawyers on both sides will do everything they can to lock down each side's actual legal rights.
I would definitely suggest people stop trying to play internet lawyer...
...and I was just about to jump up, pound my fist on the table, and say "Objection your honor!". Now I'll never find a way to impress Angie Harmon;-)
As long as nobody claims to be giving real legal advice, I think it's the equivalent of sports commentary. Not everyone reads legalese, the lawyers themselves aren't going to say anything, and anything the parties themselves say has to be considered biased. So the only way for people to guess the "score" is for a journalist or other person who reads legalese to digest the filings and provide their best opinion based on what they can see.
Right now, the latest play I noticed is that Stardock re-filed the "STAR CONTROL" trademark last week. I think (again, not a lawyer) that this gives them a pretty strong case on the trademark front. I think Paul and Fred realize it too, as they've edited their blog so that it no longer talks about making a sequel to "Star Control"; rather, they talk about making a sequel to "The Ur-Quan Masters", and explicitly acknowledge Stardock's trademark on "Star Control".
I'm hoping that this gives Stardock the ability to back down a bit. The big rule with trademarks is that you can't let anyone get away with disputing your ownership; this is what forced Stardock to sue, and it looks like it may not be happening anymore. If Stardock then concedes the copyright and distribution rights to the earlier games, I think (and hope!) there is a path coming into view toward putting away the legal knives.
As long as nobody claims to be giving real legal advice, I think it's the equivalent of sports commentary. Not everyone reads legalese, the lawyers themselves aren't going to say anything, and anything the parties themselves say has to be considered biased. So the only way for people to guess the "score" is for a journalist or other person who reads legalese to digest the filings and provide their best opinion based on what they can see.Right now, the latest play I noticed is that Stardock re-filed the "STAR CONTROL" trademark last week. I think (again, not a lawyer) that this gives them a pretty strong case on the trademark front. I think Paul and Fred realize it too, as they've edited their blog so that it no longer talks about making a sequel to "Star Control"; rather, they talk about making a sequel to "The Ur-Quan Masters", and explicitly acknowledge Stardock's trademark on "Star Control".I'm hoping that this gives Stardock the ability to back down a bit. The big rule with trademarks is that you can't let anyone get away with disputing your ownership; this is what forced Stardock to sue, and it looks like it may not be happening anymore. If Stardock then concedes the copyright and distribution rights to the earlier games, I think (and hope!) there is a path coming into view toward putting away the legal knives.
Let me first say I enjoy reading your posts. I think you are very thoughtful and fair-minded.
That said, sports commentators know the rules of the game. That's where IP lawyers come in and the rules are quite complex (as least to a lay person like me). But having been through a lot of IP litigation over the years, even I could pick apart your analysis.
Litigation is both an awful and fascinating thing. It is awful that any of this is being aired publicly as it causes both sides to dig in their heels eve more. But in either case, each side lines up what it thinks its IP rights are. A good lawyer doesn't care about feelings. They care about the law. In all likelihood, this case will go on for years and each side will begin stacking up a list of IP that they think they have rights to.
"a journalist or other person who reads legalese"
There haven't been any "journalists" since about 2004 or so. They don't exist anymore.
Thanks; part of the reason I make them is to try to provide a calmer alternative to people who are getting really emotional or personal about things.
Feel free! I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of this, but I worry that your lawyer would clonk you over the head and drag you off for a lobotomy (HAR!).
This makes me very sad. *Dons the mask of frustrated lamentation*
well, it's a lot of speculation that could be hurting both sides and the fans. Apparently there's already a divide between TeamStardock and TeamTFB... and people are going after each other. What good does that do?
Let the companies do what they need to do and stop being at each others throats and being on anyone's team... Unless you're employed by Stardock or TFB no one needs to pick sides.
Agreed. Nobody seems to care about quality anymore, it's all about being the first to talk about something, regardless of badly it's done. The current stock of gaming "journalists" are pretty crap, really. I'm especially sick of "journalists" who don't even know when to use "me" or "I". It's not always "I", people
Same with copy writers. There's a major ad campaign going on in New Zealand at the moment, billboards everywhere for this one product advertising that using it means you'll have less wrinkles. You would think that before spending millions of dollars on an ad campaign the company might have hired someone who knows the difference between "less" and "fewer". It makes me cringe every time I see one of the ads.
People are going to speculate; that's the nature of passionate fans and lawyers who can't (and shouldn't) talk about the sensitive negotiations they're having. I just try to fill the void with somewhat less emotional speculation, while being clear that speculation and opinion is all it is.
That is one aspect of it, another is that they are really propagandists now, not journalist. Just as a single example of... countless... this is why any story about a republican will be accompanied by a picture of them, often selected from frames of film, with their face scrunched up to make it look like they are angry and yelling at someone. Any picture of a democrat, they'll go back to the film to find the frame with the most flattering smiling image... and probably even airbrush in a "perfect glint of light" shining off of one of their teeth.
It's very effective propaganda, and it works very well. "Polls" are no longer an indicator of the question being asked in the poll, they are simply indicators of the effectiveness of the propaganda. We have been been living in a nation that is literally "ruled by media" since about 2004 now. And, ultimately, it won't end well. Luckily for me, I won't live long enough to see the revolution. But if this behavior doesn't end, there will eventually be one. And, to paraphrase I think it was Shakespear...
"Kill all the reporters!" will be the battlecry of that civil uprising. They are digging their own graves without realizing it. Ultimately, this will not end well for the "reporters", but they will have earned it.
Sorry if this is too political for these forums, I won't continue this line of discussion here. It's just the thing that bothers me most about the world today, and the reason I haven't been able to even watch the news for about a decade now.
Indeed. I have to limit my comments to either things that are in the complaint already OR things that we would hand over in discovery.
Every time litigation has gone public (not by us) we are pretty active in discussing it with fans. Our critics and opposing counsel then scoff that we are discussing ongoing litigation publicly (even though we aren't the ones who brought it into the public). It just requires reasonable discipline to ensure it has no adverse effects.
The one thing In this long running conversation I haven't heard anyone bring up is this. What did the Original 3rd party developer contract for starcontrol 2 say? This would answer many of these questions I think. Unless Paul and Fred can come up with some documentation to support their ownership...I'd prolly guess they don't have any.
They provided that contract in their counterclaim. It's Exhibit 1, at about page 30. I've been trying to keep links to all the relevant documents in a post over on the UQM forums.
The real puzzler (for me) is why they didn't reveal this contract sooner. It would have prevented a lot of misunderstandings.
It's definitely said something like that since the first hints of disagreement in December, at least I'm fairly certain of it.
EDIT: http://web.archive.org/web/20171201174854/https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/
On the Wayback Machine, the first appearance of that line is the 1st of December.
I can totally get why you would not want this. Since this is Stardock's largest game yet, the last thing you want to have happen is for it to be overshadowed by a game with a similar name and that tries to take all of the attention away from this project. Furthermore, if their game flops for some reason and it becomes associated with you through name, it wouldn't make the company look so great. It's great that you guys are cool with them making your own game, but at the same time it's pretty reasonable to not want them to use that kind of name since it obviously wouldn't be great.
Also, I know that they might want to keep "Star Control" in the name for series recognition, but personally I feel like "The Ghosts of the Precursors" would be just fine as a name by itself, and even if it isn't, it wouldn't be hard for them to create another name.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
