Slashdot Mirror


Games Workshop Bullies Author Over Use of the Words 'Space Marine'

New submitter jzoetewey writes "An author I know (MCA Hogarth) recently had her book Spots the Space Marine taken off Amazon because Games Workshop claimed it violated their trademark. The interesting thing? Their trademark doesn't include ebooks or novels. Unfortunately, she doesn't have the money to fight them. Plus, the idea of a space marine was around long before they were: 'In their last email to me, Games Workshop stated that they believe that their recent entrée into the e-book market gives them the common law trademark for the term “space marine” in all formats. If they choose to proceed on that belief, science fiction will lose a term that’s been a part of its canon since its inception.' Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing also made this important point: 'Amazon didn't have to honor the takedown notice. Takedown notices are a copyright thing, a creature of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They don't apply to trademark claims. This is Amazon taking voluntary steps that are in no way required in law.'"

211 comments

  1. Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine"! by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Funny

    We must stop them from going back in time to the 1930's to sue E. E. Smith and Robert Heinlein!

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
  2. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Funny

    Done. Also got.
    Portal, Hyperspace, Warp, Starship, space dock, lander, blaster, fusion torpedo, and bent time.
    Now all your belong to us.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  3. Starcraft by naroom · · Score: 4, Funny

    Boy are they gonna be mad when they find out about Starcraft!

    1. Re:Starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I recall, GW had already sued Blizzard for the space marines and zerg, after GW had a game deal with Blizz to make a game. Blizz then ended up modding some of the assets to make star craft.

      Fact or not, the story has been around for a while.

    2. Re:Starcraft by 54mc · · Score: 2

      It's common rumor, though I'm unable to find a source right now, that Starcraft was originally designed to be an RTS version of Space Hulk. You've got the Marines/Marines, Zerg/Tyaranids, Protoss/Tau. Someone who's not at work might be more enterprising than I and actually be able to find a source on this.

      --
      Joy! Beautiful spark of the gods!
    3. Re:Starcraft by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 2

      Nah, its easier to bully around people with shallower pockets.

    4. Re:Starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woosh !

    5. Re:Starcraft by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Since they copied it directly from previous works, and it is a term currently in use in various places, can they actually trademark it? Just curious.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Starcraft by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      Protoss can't have been modelled on the Tau- Games Workshop launched the Tau in 2001, whereas StarCraft was 1998.

      I've heard the rumour slightly differently- that WarCraft was to be an RTS version of Warhammer Fantasy Battles, but failed to get official licensing. It's plausible that StarCraft (which came later) was influenced by Warhammer 40k too, but seeing as Blizzard and Games Workshop had already fallen out at that point (in my version of the rumour), it's unlikely that it was ever intended to be a licensed product.

    7. Re:Starcraft by swilde23 · · Score: 1

      I should make a hoodie about that.

      --
      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand this sig, and those that beat up people who do.
    8. Re:Starcraft by metrometro · · Score: 3, Informative

      Since they copied it directly from previous works, and it is a term currently in use in various places, can they actually trademark it?

      No. Trademarks are not like copyright - there is a formal approval process, though "first use in commerce" also counts somewhat. Games Workshop was granted a 1987 trademark on the term "space marine" in "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith." They have a second trademark for "video computer games; computer software for playing games".

      This trademark is suspect, but it's now law. However, they have no protection for, say, novels or ebooks. Which makes their takedown pure bullying.

      USPTO data below.

      Word Mark SPACE MARINE
      Goods and Services IC 028. US 022. G & S: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith. FIRST USE: 19870900. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19871000
      Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
      Serial Number 74186534
      Filing Date July 19, 1991
      Current Basis 1A
      Original Filing Basis 1A
      Published for Opposition November 23, 1993
      Registration Number 1922180
      Registration Date September 26, 1995
      Owner (REGISTRANT) GAMES WORKSHOP LIMITED CORPORATION UNITED KINGDOM Willow Road, Lenton Eastwood Nottingham NG7 2W5 UNITED KINGDOM
      Attorney of Record Naresh Kilaru
      Type of Mark TRADEMARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20051125.
      Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20051125
      Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

      Word Mark SPACE MARINE
      Goods and Services (CANCELLED) IC 002. US 006 011 016. G & S: [paints, namely, water based acrylic paints for artists]
      IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: video computer games; computer software for playing games

      Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
      Serial Number 75010236
      Filing Date October 25, 1995
      Current Basis 44E
      Original Filing Basis 44D
      Published for Opposition July 8, 1997
      Change In Registration CHANGE IN REGISTRATION HAS OCCURRED
      Registration Number 2100767
      Registration Date September 30, 1997
      Owner (REGISTRANT) Games Workshops Limited CORPORATION UNITED KINGDOM WILLOW ROAD LENTON, NOTTINGHAM UNITED KINGDOM NG72 2WS
      Attorney of Record Naresh Kilaru
      Priority Date September 20, 1995
      Prior Registrations 1922180
      Type of Mark TRADEMARK
      Register PRINCIPAL
      Affidavit Text SECT 15. PARTIAL SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20080422.
      Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20080422
      Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

    9. Re:Starcraft by Talennor · · Score: 1

      It's why they're "Terran Marines" not "Space Marines". They copied the style, but the trademark isn't touched.

      --

      //TODO: signature
    10. Re:Starcraft by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      Close.
      Protoss = = Eldar, with a makeover. Complete with Dark Eldar / dark templars with warp blades

    11. Re:Starcraft by Golddess · · Score: 1

      And Halo. Isn't Master Chief a "Space Marine"?

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    12. Re:Starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't have your space marines riding around in campers and boats now, can you? What would that do for their image?

    13. Re:Starcraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's no longer rumor that WarCraft was originally headed in the direction of being a WHFB game. It was confirmed by Patrick Wyatt, the lead dev of WarCraft 1, in his blog when talking about the making of the game. Specifically, there's this bit - "Allen Adham hoped to obtain a license to the Warhammer universe to try to increase sales by brand recognition. Warhammer was a huge inspiration for the art-style of Warcraft, but a combination of factors, including a lack of traction on business terms and a fervent desire on the part of virtually everyone else on the development team (myself included) to control our own universe nixed any potential for a deal."

      Now the question becomes "Did GW shoot them down, or did they even approach GW in the first place?" My guess is that they approached GW and were shot down, considering that the guy who wanted the license was the president and co-founder of the company.

      You can read the whole blog post here. I find a lot of his stuff to be interesting reading, if only for the fact that I've thoroughly enjoyed the games he's worked on and writes about.

  4. It is still on Amazon by Internal+Modem · · Score: 2

    Spots the Space Marine: Defense of the Fiddler is still listed on Amazon. What was the point of this, a free advertisement?

    1. Re:It is still on Amazon by Mastacheata87 · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is about the eBook edition. The Paperback is obviously still available and it would seem to me that the trademark is not applicable there.

    2. Re:It is still on Amazon by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      This is about the eBook edition. The Paperback is obviously still available and it would seem to me that the trademark is not applicable there.

      Do you know where the trademark is applicable? People selling games called Space Marines.

      Since this is neither, someone's lawyer should refer them to Arkell v Pressdam -- they have absolutely no legal right to the phrase space marine in an ebook, a paper book or anything except the area in which they trademarked it.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:It is still on Amazon by SpacePunk · · Score: 1

      Just because an 'e' or an 'i' is thrown in front of something, it doesn't make it any different than the non 'e' or 'i' version.

    4. Re:It is still on Amazon by Mastacheata87 · · Score: 1

      Do you know where the trademark is applicable? People selling games called Space Marines.

      Since this is neither, someone's lawyer should refer them to Arkell v Pressdam -- they have absolutely no legal right to the phrase space marine in an ebook, a paper book or anything except the area in which they trademarked it.

      Yeah, of course they don't have their trademark protected in eBooks either.
      However Games Workshop says that they believe to have a protection in that area as well due to common law because they are now selling ebooks as well and just didn't register that category yet.
      Apparently they don't believe to have protection for paper books, whether registered or by common usage.

      Not sure if that works in US law, but it does very well work in German law as long as there is no competing trademark in that category.

    5. Re:It is still on Amazon by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      But given the sheer number of examples posted here of the use of the term, it's not like they can claim they invented it.

      Once you decide Marines are the bad-asses who go in first, and once you figure out people will eventually go to space -- it's pretty logical to assume Space Marines, Space Soliders, Space Navy, Space Pilots.

      It's a descriptive term -- yes, if you're selling tabletop games called "Space Marines", fine. But these guys really need to be sanctioned for over-stepping their actual trademark. And their lawyers should bloody well have known this didn't apply here.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:It is still on Amazon by Megane · · Score: 2

      So just change the 'a' to an 'i' and you get Spice Marines!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    7. Re:It is still on Amazon by Mastacheata87 · · Score: 1

      But given the sheer number of examples posted here of the use of the term, it's not like they can claim they invented it.

      Once you decide Marines are the bad-asses who go in first, and once you figure out people will eventually go to space -- it's pretty logical to assume Space Marines, Space Soliders, Space Navy, Space Pilots.

      It's a descriptive term -- yes, if you're selling tabletop games called "Space Marines", fine. But these guys really need to be sanctioned for over-stepping their actual trademark. And their lawyers should bloody well have known this didn't apply here.

      I don't argue that point. Actually I don't think there should be a difference between usage in an eBook and a paper book.

      Games Workshop has a trademark in some Nice classes and assume protection in ebooks because they have now (after registering the trademark) started selling ebooks themselves. Amazon removed the eBook version, but not the Paperback. The logical consequernce is that Games Workshop doesn't even assume any protection in paper books, otherwise they would have asked Amazon to remove the paperback version as well.
      At least that's the only way I could explain why the Paperback version is still there.

    8. Re:It is still on Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is about the eBook edition. The Paperback is obviously still available and it would seem to me that the trademark is not applicable there.

      The ebook edition of Spots the Space Marine: Defense of the Fiddler is also available on Amazon.

  5. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by GameboyRMH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Also relevant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine#History

    Read it quick before Games Workshop defaces the page!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  6. Space Marine is pretty vague by VinylRecords · · Score: 1

    Warhammer 40K, Starship Troopers, Aliens/Weyland, Starcraft, and lots of other science-fiction universes have used space marines in their stories. They've all borrowed from each other. I don't think there are huge outcries from the Event Horizon people when the video game Dead Space is essentially Event Horizon the game. Or when 2001: Space Odyssey had its cold interiors and robotic enemies copied over and over. The writer of Alien said that he was enormously influenced by 2001.

    Half of the Starcraft units would quote Aliens characters' dialog. And Starcraft's entire Terran campaign was themed and artistically patterned after the propaganda style filming of the movie Starship Troopers. "Would you like to know more"? No one cared. It was cool actually. "In the pipe...five by five".

    It would be one thing if this novelist was putting in Xenomorphs or Tyranids in her story. But she's just using the old trope of a modern military man projected into the future. With advanced technology and advanced enemies, even alien enemies. No big deal. I doubt she's even aware of Warhammer 40K.

    I read a synopsis of the book....uh....it's not exactly hard science fiction nor is it adult science fiction either. They bleep out the curse words in the novel. So "fuck you" becomes "**** you". Doubt that many Warhammer 40K fans...the kind that can afford to drop hundreds or thousands of dollars on models and game are reading this book.

    1. Re:Space Marine is pretty vague by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      Once you've got Horatio Hornblower in space, Space Marines can't be far behind. It's just so terribly obvious. Ships in space? Forward enemy bases to be destroyed (in space)?

      Marines in space are a painfully obvious idea at that point.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Space Marine is pretty vague by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Copyright violation (in space), taking a shit (in space), pigs (in space) ... this is a fun game. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Space Marine is pretty vague by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      pigs (in space) ...

      Been done before, in the 1970s

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  7. GW can suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The earliest known use of the term "space marine" was by Bob Olsen in his short story "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" (Amazing Stories, Volume 7, Number 8, November 1932).

    1. Re:GW can suck it by Minwee · · Score: 0

      Thanks for reading Wikipedia for us. Now we don't have to.

    2. Re:GW can suck it by SternisheFan · · Score: 2

      Just wonderin', before they were Space Marines, were they 'Space Cadets'?

    3. Re:GW can suck it by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      They'd be 'Space Recruits.' The real question is, if some civilization didn't have a maritime navy tradition, but developed space troops, then invaded, say, Earth, and needed to use those troops in amphibious assaults, would they be 'Marine Spaces?'

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:GW can suck it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wonderin', before they were Space Marines, were they 'Space Cadets'?

      Apparently:

      They'd be 'Space Recruits.'

      Wooooosh!

    5. Re:GW can suck it by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      the roleplaying game Traveller came out in 1977. They had space marines a full 10 years before Warhammer 40k was released to the games market.

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
    6. Re:GW can suck it by PhilHibbs · · Score: 1

      "Prior art" is irrelevant to trademarks. If no-one else is using a phrase in a commercial category, you can register it as a trademark in that category. When the phrase was invented or by whom is totally beside the point.

    7. Re:GW can suck it by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      More like naval infantry

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  8. LAW TOO COMPLEX ERROR IN 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even companies are now acting out of fear of an overreaching ill-defined law. If companies with legal departments staffed to the gills are incapable of interpreting the law then what chance does the common-or-garden person have?

    "Ignorance is no excuse" is bullshit. I can produce any number of laws you can't physically process within the confines of reality, be it sheer information volume or time required to read and process. I can literally throw more shit at you than you could ever hope to digest as a human being. Does this make you "ignorant"? No...it makes you "I have more important shit to deal with than your stupid crap".

    Fucking idiots. Total fucking idiots.

    1. Re:LAW TOO COMPLEX ERROR IN 10 by metrometro · · Score: 1

      It's not complicated. Trademark law is applicable here. Amazon gets letter about trademark. Amazon looks up the trademark in the database. It's here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4008:7ndtqg.1.1

      Play along!

      Amazon searches for "space marine".

      Amazon sees that the trademark applies to "board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith" Another mark applies to "video computer games; computer software for playing games".

      Has Games Workshop provided evidence that this product (a book) is infringing? No. Therefore take no action.

      The suggestion that this is complicated favors the bullies abusing the law (Games Workshop) and the companies that roll over on their users (Amazon). Don't let them make this about the trademark system, which is pretty straightforward and pro-consumer. Games Workshop could not get a trademark on Space Marine in books. Amazon should care about this.

    2. Re:LAW TOO COMPLEX ERROR IN 10 by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your scenario may be true, but it doesn't describe what is going on here. Amazon is simply siding with the party that has the greatest power to drive their legal costs up.

      The problem is not with the law becoming *complex*, so much as it is becoming *cheap*. Lawyers are cheap enough for companies to use them to harass people, but not cheap enough that an ordinary person can afford to defend himself.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:LAW TOO COMPLEX ERROR IN 10 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon probably calculated:

      Getting sued by GW and losing $xx.xxx.xxx
      Getting sued by GW and winning $x.xxx.xxx
      Getting sued by MH and losing $xxx.xxx
      Getting sued by MH and winning $xx.xxx
      Getting not sued by MH $x.xxx (lost revenue)

  9. Caughty in the middle by Daemonik · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing also made this important point: 'Amazon didn't have to honor the takedown notice. Takedown notices are a copyright thing, a creature of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. They don't apply to trademark claims. This is Amazon taking voluntary steps that are in no way required in law.'"

    Yet, either way Amazon will be the one getting sued by one or both of these people.

    1. Re:Caughty in the middle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure Amazon has enough lawyers to take on "Games Workshop"

      I hear that owning an Internet is a pretty big deal, nowadays

    2. Re:Caughty in the middle by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yet, either way Amazon will be the one getting sued by one or both of these people.

      Why? Amazon is just neutral territory.

      The author just needs to file a DMCA counter-notice, and that will be the end of the involvement of Amazon.

      Then, it will be up to the UK-based company to sue the book author directly, for trademark infringement instead of copyright infringement (assuming they're even willing to go that far, because if they sue, they will probably lose -- so it's really not in their interests to sue). The author should just ask them if she can license the trademark for $1 in perpetuity for her existing ebook and try to settle this matter quietly out of court.

    3. Re:Caughty in the middle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DMCA does not address trademarks.

    4. Re:Caughty in the middle by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      DMCA does not address trademarks.

      Yes, exactly. The reason her ebook was taken down was because the company filed a DMCA takedown (which really doesn't apply in this case, so it's invalid). That's why this DMCA request needs to be taken off the table through a counter notice.

    5. Re:Caughty in the middle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reportedly, Amazon will not put the ebook back until /Games Workshop/ says that the infringement is no longer present -- because it's not a DMCA takedown. It's either not getting the same protections because it's filed as a trademark violation, which does not have the same legal recourse of "no, I swear it is NOT in violation, so put it back till the courts decide" -- or because Amazon has a policy of taking down ebooks if there's a complaint from someone with a legit website and real lawyer letterheads on their paper, and that policy has no recourse for the self-publishing author to say, "Their lawyers are bunk, I swear, so put it back till the courts decide." I don't know which it is.

      (Meanwhile, CreateSpace and the Kindle publishing divisions are apparently far enough apart that this has not trickled down, or Amazon just does the bare minimum -- if they were told to take down the ebook but not the physbook, then why take that extra five minutes to say, "You want the other one down, too?")

  10. Starship Troopers by OverlordQ · · Score: 1

    While called Mobile Infantry, weren't they effectively 'space marines'?

    Well lets check wikipedia:

    The earliest known use of the term "space marine" was by Bob Olsen in his short story "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" (Amazing Stories, Volume 7, Number 8, November 1932), a light-hearted work whose title is a play on the song "Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines", and in which the protagonists were marines of the "Earth Republic Space Navy" on mission to rescue celebrity twins from aliens on Titan.

    Ah yea, GW can go fuck themselves.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
  11. I think it's time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some Space Marines visit Amazon...

    disclaimer :: I have not nor do I intend to ever buy anything from Amazon.
    The "False Scarcity" patent was the ticket.

    1. Re:I think it's time... by Drishmung · · Score: 1

      Nuke 'em from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
  12. John Scalzi Blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    John Scalzi (president of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America and author of Old Man's War) did a blog post on this also.
    http://whatever.scalzi.com/

    1. Re:John Scalzi Blog by Sperbels · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thanks for the link. This will take you to the specific blog entry: http://whatever.scalzi.com/2013/02/06/space-marines-and-the-battle-of-tradem-ark/

  13. It's the lawyers by steelfood · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is what happens when you let a bunch of lawyers take over the country's judicial system. Every business is scared shitless of lawsuits. Every little complaint results in a massive overreaction.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    1. Re:It's the lawyers by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem isn't the Lawyers in the Judicial System, it is Lawyers in the other two branches. Can anyone say "conflict of interest" in making laws only lawyers can benefit from?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    2. Re:It's the lawyers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is what happens when you let a bunch of lawyers take over the country's judicial system.

      I'm not sure what's more surprising - that anybody would say this, or that it would be modded up. Justice is law, it's exactly where lawyers should be, and no one should be in another position - like a judge - without solid background and experience in law. Law and legislature are exactly what they're supposed to be doing. The problem is letting corporations and special interests buy them out.

  14. GW blowing smoke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trademark or not, the term "Space Marine" predates Games Workshop.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine

    To call this term a trademark is tenuous

    1. Re:GW blowing smoke by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Trademark or not, the term "Space Marine" predates Games Workshop.

      That's immaterial. The term "Apple" was in use before both the computer manufacturer and the record company.

      What's material is that a trademark is limited to certain applications.
      Someone publishing a book about Space Marines would not be covered even if they were allowed the trademark for e-book purposes (which it seems they aren't), any more than a book called "In every nook and cranny" would impose on Barnes and Noble's trademark for "nook".

    2. Re:GW blowing smoke by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Apple Records actually sued Apple Computer over that and won....

  15. As Jobs would say: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Change the title.

    Not that big a deal.
    Steve.

  16. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Scaboo · · Score: 1

    Agreed. Heinlein beat them by 16 years at least with Starship Troopers (its publication versus when Games Workshop was founded).

  17. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by H0p313ss · · Score: 5, Informative

    Also relevant:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_marine#History

    Read it quick before Games Workshop defaces the page!

    I was going to say exactly the same thing, so rather than being completely redundant, here's the first two paragraphs:

    The earliest known use of the term "space marine" was by Bob Olsen in his short story "Captain Brink of the Space Marines" (Amazing Stories, Volume 7, Number 8, November 1932), a light-hearted work whose title is a play on the song "Captain Jinks of the Horse Marines", and in which the protagonists were marines of the "Earth Republic Space Navy" on mission to rescue celebrity twins from aliens on Titan. Olsen published a novella sequel four years later, "The Space Marines and the Slavers" (Amazing Stories, Volume 10, Number 13, December 1936), featuring the same characters against Martian space pirates, and using a spaceship with active camouflage.[2]

    A more widely known early example was E. E. Smith's Lensman series. While the first story, Triplanetary and most later sequels (Second Stage Lensmen, Children of the Lens and The Vortex Blaster) do not mention them, passing mentions of marines are made in Galactic Patrol[a] (Astounding Stories, September 1937–February 1938) and Gray Lensman[b][c] (Astounding Stories, October 1939–January 1940), and a more direct mention is made in First Lensman (1950): "Dronvire of Rigel Four in the lead, closely followed by Costigan, Northrop, Kinnison the Younger, and a platoon of armed and armored Space Marines!".

    1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  18. My question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Once we colonize the moon or mars and have marines stationed there, will the U.S Government NOT be able to call them Space Marines? You know Marines that reside in SPACE?

    1. Re:My question is... by jsepeta · · Score: 1

      or we could refer to them in the vernacular, changing "canon fodder" to "laser canon fodder".

      --
      Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
  19. games-workshop.com wasn't even registered! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was playing as the Space Marine in Doom before games-workshop.com was even registered as a domain! These scum-sucking pieces of lying shit can go fuck themselves!

  20. Entirely true to character for Games Workshop by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Looks like this is little more than the latest expansion pack release for their flagship product, "Bully Everyone With Legal Threats And Be Giant Douchebags".

    God I hate that company. The only thing worse than them and their SCO-style tactics are their rabid fanbois.

    1. Re:Entirely true to character for Games Workshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      hey, that should be Rabid Space Fanbois(TM)

      sincerely,

      the Giant Space Douchebags(TM) at GW

  21. GW Has Always Done This by preaction · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GW has always been extremely protective of their IP, to the point of this insanity. There are people who write programs to help them play GW games, they get C+D letters (a couple army builder programs, because they included numbers from GW copyrighted books, which you still need to know the rules to play).

    It sucks because GW does make good games. They just want absolute control over how you're able to play them. I wonder what would happen if TSR had exercised the same control...

    1. Re:GW Has Always Done This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Numbers are facts as are rules of a game. They aren't under copyright unless formatted in a specific way. How are those C+D letters valid?

    2. Re:GW Has Always Done This by zipn00b · · Score: 1

      Because GW has more money than the average person they send those letters to.......

  22. One word: StarBlazers by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Series 2, with the Comet Empire, had Space Marines.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:One word: StarBlazers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I even remember one spilling some pure earth water on a battleground on another world to honor his dead homies, err... Space Marines.

  23. Troll? Mistake? Lawyers inflating their bill? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

    What's the motivation behind games workshop doing this? I'm guessing they're not trying to get money here. So which is more likely, that their legal department simply sends out takedown requests and threats to any hits on google that aren't theirs, their legal department is intentionally wasting billable hours, or they're actually trying to assert control over any e-books with space marines?

  24. What about SPESS MEHRENS? by frambris · · Score: 1

    If you say the words different... what then?
    SPESS MEHRENS WE HAVE FEHLED THE EMPRA

    1. Re:What about SPESS MEHRENS? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Damn. Why do I now get the mental image of a cat dressed in tinfoil?

       

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  25. File a petition to invalidate. by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Informative

    As evidenced by its popular use dating back for nearly a century as seen in this 1936 comic book, by itself, the term "space marine" is a descriptive and generic term that is ineligible for trademark protection, in much the same way that you cannot trademark the term "laptop computer" or "space ship". Whereas this trademark should never have been granted in the first place, the petitioner requests summary judgment in invalidating the errantly issued trademark.

    See the USPTO's appeals process page for information about how you can proceed with or without an attorney.

    Once the trademark has been invalidated, inform Amazon. They will restore your book, and the entire publishing and software world will rejoice in your space marines' victory over the egregiously evil trademark abuser.

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    1. Re:File a petition to invalidate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trademark is valid in the concept it was filed. This is a lawyer in a company trying to stretch trademark protection into copyright territory. The DMCA request alone should have told you that.

    2. Re:File a petition to invalidate. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term is not "generic and descriptive" with regards to the product on sale.

      Nobody here is selling space marines.

      It is entirely reasonable to trademark "Space Marine" brand soap for instance.

    3. Re:File a petition to invalidate. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, they're trademarking a video game about space marines. So it is, in fact, descriptive with regards to the product they're selling.

      It would, however, be entirely reasonable to trademark "Space Marine" brand soap.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  26. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by kav2k · · Score: 2

    Read it quick before Games Workshop assumes ownership of the page!

    FTFY

  27. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by viperidaenz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Noone is claiming copyright. Games Workshop are misusing their trademark and Amazon is complicit.

  28. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone know what happened to Captain Boreal...
    spess mehreens...

  29. Wrong headline by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't it read: "Games Workshop commits perjury filing false DMCA take down request."?

    1. Re:Wrong headline by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Informative

      Shouldn't it read: "Games Workshop commits perjury filing false DMCA take down request."?

      perjury is lying under oath.

      No, this is just good old fashioned douchebaggery, masquerading under the guise of IP protection.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    2. Re:Wrong headline by Umuri · · Score: 4, Informative

      Shouldn't it read: "Games Workshop commits perjury filing false DMCA take down request."?

      perjury is lying under oath.

      No, this is just good old fashioned douchebaggery, masquerading under the guise of IP protection.

      Actually, DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. So in effect, they ARE under oath. Whoever marked the above as informative needs to read the laws they cower from.

      --
      You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    3. Re:Wrong headline by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it read: "Games Workshop commits perjury filing false DMCA take down request."?

      perjury is lying under oath.

      No, this is just good old fashioned douchebaggery, masquerading under the guise of IP protection.

      Actually, DMCA notices are sent under penalty of perjury. So in effect, they ARE under oath. Whoever marked the above as informative needs to read the laws they cower from.

      Did not know that.

      Someone mod this guy Informative.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  30. Wierd Feeling by techsoldaten · · Score: 1

    I have a weird feeling this is going to lead to an invalidation of GW's trademark on the phrase Space Marine in the first place. There are so many examples of prior art it's not even funny, not to mention the fact there are actually real-life space marines these days. I don't think you can trademark a class of things.

    Their trademark is limited to protection for tabletop games, it does not enjoy a universal application. For them to assert they own trademark rights outside of that context is not actually valid. I mean, if someone else was making tabletop miniatures and calling them Space Marines, I could see that as something they would want to take action against.

    But an ebook? This will have the Internet up in arms!

    1. Re:Wierd Feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prior art applies to patents ... not trademarks. Moreover, the same work can be trademarked by different people for different things (e.g., Baretta for a gun and for a car, and Lexus for a car and a computer database service).

      "I don't think you can trademark a class of things."
      That's EXACTLY how it works. http://www.legalzoom.com/trademarks-glossary/trademark-class-classification.html

    2. Re:Wierd Feeling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying if someone releases a shitty car named Space Marine, it's trademark won't conflict with the trademark for GW's use of the term? And thus, GW has no standing to be harassing the author, because their trademark doesn't conflict with the author's trademark?

    3. Re:Wierd Feeling by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      True, but it's a descriptive term. Space marines are marines in space. If Space Marines was a band or a manufacturer of electronic hardware, they would have a strong argument.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  31. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No, its a trademark. While it is intellectual property, it is an entirely different beast. Basically, you can have a trademark on common phrases as long as the use of the term would create confusion and it isn't so generic as to refer to an entire class of things. I totally think they should have it in the area of hobbies and games (the sentence "I went to the hobby store and bought some Space Marines" obviously refers to GW's product). However, it is too far to refer to general toys and books because you could refer to something else, such as space marine dolls from Aliens or StarCraft or a ton of other sources.

  32. Available from Smashwords by rafial · · Score: 2

    While Games Workshop are the main villains here, this does highlight the problem with buying DRM encrusted books from an entity with unaccountable censorship powers. I note that this ebook is available from Smashwords in open, unencumbered formats: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/26359 - as is usual in situations like this, I immediately purchased a copy to give the finger to bullies, and support an author.

  33. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nah, they'll make a blog with those same things, and send a DMCA notice to Wikipedia to take it down themselves.

  34. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Gription · · Score: 1

    Someone needs to update the Wikipedia page with this most current bit of history relating to the firm "Space Marine".
    (In other words make Games Workshop have to live with the stupidity of their mistake.)

  35. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by amicusNYCL · · Score: 5, Informative

    1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.

    They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.

    Hopefully these links work, I'll provide the serial numbers in case.

    The trademark for "SPACE MARINE", serial number 74186534, issued in 1993, covers: board games, parlor games, war games, hobby games, toy models and miniatures of buildings, scenery, figures, automobiles, vehicles, planes, trains and card games and paint, sold therewith. Another trademark for "SPACE MARINES", SN 75014487, filed in 1995 by someone else, but abandoned in 1997, did cover "series of science fiction books". It was abandoned in July 1997, then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.

    So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  36. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by RoboRay · · Score: 1

    In the time it took you to make this post, you could have just done it yourself. :)

  37. space marine... by drankr · · Score: 1

    The issue of the dumbness of these two words put together has worried me for some time now. Perhaps the lady should go for "naval spaceman". Makes as little sense, but will save her some aggro.

    1. Re:space marine... by rafial · · Score: 1

      "Air Cavalry" must keep you awake at nights ;)

    2. Re:space marine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not a solution, because that allows this stupidity to continue for every combination of words in the English language.

      First of all, Amazon needs to have a simple notice denying that the DMCA claim is correct, that will put them in the clear (Amazon has no defence here - they have to do the takedown, which is the epically stupid part of this law).

      The problem is what comes next. A frivolous DMCA notice can result in fines - at least, that was the excuse that allowed this stupidity to become law. The problem is that powers are uneven. It's simple to file a DMCA notice, it's costly to ensure the penalty actually happens so this crap continues.

      If the people who filed DMCA notices frivolously would actually receive the penalty they deserve this gaming would stop pretty soon. Instead, it's just a heaving mess everyone pays for.

    3. Re:space marine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. They're just Pegasus- rather than horse-mounted.

  38. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by BryanL · · Score: 5, Funny

    It looks like you dropped the base.

  39. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon would be liable if they didn't take it down. It's called "contributory trademark infringement," and to avoid it, you can't knowingly allow infringing goods to be sold in your store. There's a case pretty squarely on point, Tiffany v. eBay

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Inc._v._eBay,_Inc.

    Which isn't to say this is legit, just that Amazon is probably right to cover its ass in a system that is very friendly to trademark owners.

  40. Appeal to Amazon, not Games Workshop by gravis777 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would be shocked if Amazon didn't have a little form or something that you couldn't fill out to appeal a copyright or trademark infringement. I had Copyright notices on YouTube, and I appealed a couple because they were music that was in the public domain, and the company in question didn't even own the copyright on the arrangement I used. It would shock me that Amazon wouldn't have something similar.

    In the event of a DMCA takedown notice, the person accused normally just has to say that there is no copyright infringement, then the company claiming it has to offer proof that infringement happened. Or at least, that is my understanding (I could be wrong - while I have had companies claim copyright on stuff on Youtube, no one has actually requested a takedown).

    The whole point - your friend doesn't have to pay to fight. Notify Amazon that the claim was in error, have them restore the material, and then force Games Workshop to prove their claim.

    1. Re:Appeal to Amazon, not Games Workshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know right? People are just lazy and or whiney. You never have to pay to fight. Just write a strongly worded letter, throw in a few fancy legal terms, and they'll have her book back listed ASAP. All for free. Only if they actually bother to sue do you need to find a lawyer but for a BS claim like this you can easily represent yourself. Again. FOR FREE.

    2. Re:Appeal to Amazon, not Games Workshop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hogarth tried that route. Amazon referred her back to Games Workshop. :P so, until GW backs down officially, Amazon refuses to actually use any brainpower and read the trademark for themselves.

    3. Re:Appeal to Amazon, not Games Workshop by jzoetewey · · Score: 1

      She did try that. It went nowhere with Amazon. They won't relist your ebook until the trademark owner says it's okay.

      When she contacted Games Workshop, they made it quite clear that they would not do that.

  41. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... cause I got the copyright for base.

  42. People shjould express their displeasure by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    at the offending company.

  43. So much ignorance ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A trademark serves to identify the source of a good or service.

    I don't believe the title of a book (e.g., "Spots the Space Marine") identifies the source of a good or service. Also, there is no problem using a trademarked name in a book (e.g., "the hero drank a Coca Cola before battling the evil aliens").

    What you have is an over-zealous attorney (representing Games Workshop) and some peon at Amazon that isn't sophisticated to understand the issue.

    Of course, the easy solution is to simply change the name of the book.

  44. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It looks like you dropped the base.

    And rightly so. I've trademarked base, and I don't remember licensing it to you. See you in court, sucker!

  45. It looks like it is back up... by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    I just checked and the book is listed on Amazon...

    1. Re:It looks like it is back up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I only see the paperback, no ebook.

    2. Re:It looks like it is back up... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You didn't look very hard then. The Kindle version has been pulled. "eBook" is the clue here.

      There may also be more to this that the summary, after all, it's a self published tripe with almost no reviews.

  46. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can have a trademark on common phrases as long as the use of the term would create confusion and it isn't so generic as to refer to an entire class of things.

    Oh, like Androids and Robots, to use George Lucas and "Droid" as an example? Sorry, that's not really how it works. How it works, is that if you spend enough money on marketing so that a word becomes commonly associated with your product, you can then trademark it, regardless of how broad or narrow it is.

    The problem in this article is that Amazon should NOT be taking down content based on a complaint of TM violation- it's up to GW to take the person to court and THEN present Amazon with proof of the violation. TM is not covered under DMCA processes, but Amazon appears to not understand this and is treating it like a copyright issue. They don't have any duty or liability to stop selling the product until there's a judgement against the author.... unless this person is using Amazon to publish their works. In which case too bad, that's what you get for using a cheapskate publishing service which lacks any kind of "Testicular Fortitude".

  47. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by stephanruby · · Score: 2

    This is ridiculous. If I were her, I'd call up the company and ask them if I could license their trademark for my existing book for $1 in perpetuity. This would resolve the issue of them being forced to defend their trademark.

    If that didn't work, I'd remove the book from Amazon UK, because I wouldn't want to be sued in the UK by this UK-based company, but then I'd file a counter-DMCA takedown on Amazon - US?

    I don't know if this is good legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. But this is what I would do if I had a ebook under my name. Either that, or since it's a ebook, I would just rename the book and just do like Prince did and append at the end of its name (formerly known as "Spots the Space Marines")

  48. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

    Goes back 20 years before that with Misfit and The Long Watch.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
  49. No you won't by Kupfernigk · · Score: 2
    Being a complete pedant, I have to observe that the Royal Air Force does not have "air marines". That is because (a) it has the RAF Regiment and (b) the founders of the RAF were literate and so knew that "marine" derives from the Latin mare - the sea. They at one point considered naming ranks after Latin terms associated with flight, but then decided to stick with the words "flight","air" and "wing". Space marines are a category error. Assuming that in the future it is found necessary to have a body on a military space ship under separate command so that in the event of mutiny they can fight the mutineers - one of the original uses of the Marines and why their quarters on a sailing ship are between other ranks quarters and the officers - they would, very obviously, be space soldiers. Heinlein's "Starship troopers" isn't bad, though they weren't strictly cavalry.

    Yes I am grumpy and pedantic today, but this whole storm in a teacup is the result of lazy thinking by a number of authors.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:No you won't by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      Assuming that in the future it is found necessary to have a body on a military space ship under separate command so that in the event of mutiny they can fight the mutineers - one of the original uses of the Marines and why their quarters on a sailing ship are between other ranks quarters and the officers - they would, very obviously, be space soldiers.

      If this is true why aren't/weren't the one on ships just called soldiers?

      Soldiers who are stationed on ships[1] are marines, so soldiers stationed on space ships are space marines.

      [1] as distinct from merely being transported on them like passengers.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:No you won't by radtea · · Score: 1

      Heinlein's "Starship troopers" isn't bad, though they weren't strictly cavalry.

      As on pedant to another, I believe the technical term in "Starship Troopers" was "mobile infantry", which is accurate but a little too general--I've never encountered infantry that weren't mobile, except maybe after a regimental drunk. Or I guess in Europe between 1914 and 1918.

      "Starship infantry" would have been better, although given the book's purpose as pro-military propaganda it lacks that romantic haze required to blur away the pointless death and destruction such troops have always created when deployed outside their own borders.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    3. Re:No you won't by cgaertner · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that while Heinlein did not use the term 'space marine' in Starship Troopers, he used it in some of his other stories, among them Misfit.

    4. Re:No you won't by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 1

      In the original appearance in Fantasy & Science Fiction Magazine Nov 1959, Heinlein's story had the title "Starship Soldiers"

    5. Re:No you won't by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      While what you say is true, it's also worth noting that a ton of the terminology in science fiction, as well as a bit of the terminology in actual usage, is rooted in the seafaring tradition. Even the terms 'spaceship' and 'starship' are a nod to that. A lot of developments in navigation were developed first for ships or used most widely there, and those terms make for an easier understanding of what's going on when traveling in three dimensions. It's much like how a ridiculous amount of our language is tied to horses. Another thing to note is that 'marines' are no longer exclusively operating in the oceans, and space marines sound way more badass then 'space army', 'space troopers', 'space soliders', and such. I will agree that it is a bit lazy, but being lazy is one of the best things about humanity. Laziness is why we invent.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:No you won't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Military has the (big) guns they'll make up the names they want. Thus we wind up with names like 'Mechanized infantry'.

    7. Re:No you won't by monkeykoder · · Score: 1

      "Starship infantry" would have been better, although given the book's purpose as pro-military propaganda it lacks that romantic haze required to blur away the pointless death and destruction such troops have always created when deployed outside their own borders.

      I've never been quite clear as to whether it was pro-military propaganda or straight sarcasm. In reading many of Heinlein's other works I eventually started to believe that it might indeed be the latter. Either way Heinlein must have been a very interesting person (read crazy) possibly in a good way.

    8. Re:No you won't by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1

      You are missing the whole point of the derivation from mare. The word 'ship' does not necessarily imply sea going - cf airship and spaceship - but the marine bit most certainly does.

      --
      From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  50. Amazon is targetting the wrong thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So Amazon will take down a book for an alleged copyright infringement, which this situation is not, but they won't stop all the resellers on Amazon that sell counterfeit chinese products as the real deal.

  51. email custserv@games-workshop.com by s13g3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nastygram sent to custserv@games-workshop.com telling them what I think of their parsimonious self-aggrandizement.

    It's one thing to know you're annoying, it's another thing when the people you count on to buy your products start flooding your inbox TELLING you you're being obnoxious.

    After all, the FCC says that a complaint from one person is the equivalent of 50,000 people (or somesuch ridiculous figure) who are just as upset but didn't or couldn't send a complaint, right? In any event, I'll not be buying their products until they can stop acting like greedy little children who think they own everything they can lay hands on or claim to, and I'll be encouraging others to do the same.

    --
    "Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
    1. Re:email custserv@games-workshop.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I tried this. Reply:
      "Thanks for writing in to us! Unfortunately I am unable to answer any IP or legal questions on behalf of Games Workshop. Those kinds of questions need to be fielded to our legal department at legal@gwplc.com. I’m not sure how long it may take them to answer your question, but this is the right place to send it to. "

    2. Re:email custserv@games-workshop.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried this, reply:
      "Thanks for writing in to us! Unfortunately I am unable to answer any IP or legal questions on behalf of Games Workshop. Those kinds of questions need to be fielded to our legal department at legal@gwplc.com. I’m not sure how long it may take them to answer your question, but this is the right place to send it to. "

  52. They even have a trademark on a description? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell is this world coming to?

    I should trademark What the hell and sue the entire damn internet. I'll become so rich I could single-handedly fund that Deathstar Kickstarter.

    Screw the IP system, it needs to be ripped apart and rewritten from scratch. Trying to patent, trademark and whatever else basic sentences, basic descriptions and so on should be punished on the spot by a punch in the throat and thrown out of a moving vehicle.

    Counter claim and get GW punished. They cannot win any court case even if they tried and had the richest damn lawyers from Hell. There is prior art older than their damn company and their own employees most likely. Not to mention it is a damn description of a role.
    Nothing worse than people trademarking common words, single actual words and using them for content. (See Moon, Scrolls. They might be good, but damn it, fuck off with that abuse, come up with better damn names and stop being lazy)

    Also, fuck you Games Workshop, you are on my shitlist. I'm never getting any of your stuff, and I will make sure to tell everyone else to stay away from your stuff now.
    You just lost a good 70-100~ customers even from 3 layers of Word of Mouth. Suck it.

  53. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Quirkz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And in the time you replied, it would have been reverted by whoever considers himself the owner of that section of Wikipedia.

  54. A deeper problem by alexo · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, she doesn't have the money to fight them.

    And here lies the the problem with our so called "justice" system: it's cost.
    Even when you are 100% in the right, you still need to spend (a lot of) money to get justice, money you will never get back and sometimes, when the other side can throw vastly larger amount of money at the problem, you will still lose.

    There is no justice, only institutionalized extortion.

    1. Re:A deeper problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now you know EXACTLY why for the gun grab, vigilantism against the fascist fucks

  55. B&N by vanyel · · Score: 1

    The book is still on Barnes & Noble, who also uses standard epub format instead of a proprietary format, and a lot of their books don't use DRM...

    http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/spots-the-space-marine-mca-hogarth/1112308671?ean=9781470131050

    The point being: support businesses doing it right...

    1. Re:B&N by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      If I had mod points.....

      Amazon is really getting to be a pain when it comes to e-books. I was never a fan of the idea but there are clearly grades of evil here.

  56. Eldar-Protoss by PrimalChrome · · Score: 1

    The Protoss are derived from the Eldar. Look at some of the original artwork and then the Eldar designs at the time. The similarity is unmistakable....just as the Zerg are reimagined Tyranids.

    But it all started with Warcraft being pulled from Warhammer Fantasy Battles...and when it made a strong presence in the gaming world, Starcraft began development. Heck, if a formula of copying another company's lore with only a degree of different results in profit...why not do it again.

    1. Re:Eldar-Protoss by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 2

      Well, it's not like Warhammer Fantasy was all that original, either. We had elves and orcs and trolls and dwarfs fighting eachother well before Games Workslop decided to overcharge for tiny pewter figures.

    2. Re:Eldar-Protoss by VAElynx · · Score: 1

      Zerg are IMHO far more original and I like them more than tyrranids.
      However, Protoss and Eldar are scarily similar indeed.
      At least makes sense I liked the UED so much in Brood War. They were fighting for the Emperor. XD

    3. Re:Eldar-Protoss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that made GW's fantasy interesting is that they created their own universe, rather than rolling Tolken's corpse over for another raping, like everyone else had done.

  57. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There's a case pretty squarely on point, Tiffany v. eBay

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Inc._v._eBay,_Inc.

    Your link says this: Tiffany sued eBay for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising but eventually lost against eBay on all claims. This seems to be the opposite of what you imply it says.

    Common law trademarks carry very little legal weight, and there is no penalty for violating them. If GW wants to make a claim of infringement, Amazon should go tell them to go register with the USPTO first.

    Btw, you need to stop posting as "Anonymous Coward" because I have a common law trademark on that term.

  58. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by volxdragon · · Score: 1
  59. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by TheCRAIGGERS · · Score: 1

    No, because quite frankly I don't want to give Games Workslop the free publicity.

  60. Blizzard Warcraft original ripoff of GW Warhammer by leftie · · Score: 1

    Warhammer came first, and Blizzard blatantly ripped off Games Workshop Warhammer when the Blizzard released Warcraft.

  61. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by internic · · Score: 2

    I realize you were probably just going for comic effect, but FYI for anyone who cares: you can link to a specific version of a page so that you don't have to worry about how it might change later.

    --
    "You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
  62. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by RoboRay · · Score: 1

    So, why even bother suggesting it if you feel it's a waste of time?

  63. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by tlambert · · Score: 1

    [...]then in Sept 1997 Games Workshop filed for "SPACE MARINE" again (SN 75010236), which covered video computer games; computer software for playing games.

    So, they don't even own a trademark on the term for any books at all.

    The problem here being that what was taken down was an eBook, which is considered to be software, which is why they are permitted to licene the things, rather than you being able to own them outright, since you have purchased a physical artifact. For the same reasons, first use law doesn't apply, and therefore you can be prohibited from resale of eBooks.

    This crap is out of hand, and in sore need of some reform; After 400 years, we are back to book licenses; we came up with copyright in the first place to stop this crap.

  64. Gamesworkshop = Legal Douchebags by Marful · · Score: 2

    Gamesworkshop also used the claim of "trademark infringement" to go after online retailers of their product. Making them the only online retailer allowed to have a shopping cart system with their product. All other venders require customers to fill out a form to order product.

    Gamesworkshop needs to have the shit sued out of them for their abuse of their claim to "trademark" to include everything under the sun.

  65. copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When is this whole copyright thing going to go out of hand? Oh, it has aldready? Yeah.
    So, when is this whole copyright thing going to be discontinued? I am very anxious to see it happen.
    People are making money out of thin air, and the economy suffers.

  66. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Quirkz · · Score: 1

    I didn't. The first person you replied to was Gription, not me.

  67. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by RoboRay · · Score: 1

    Sorry, my mistake. :)

  68. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Didn't they use "Space Marine" in the DOOM game series??

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  69. Eat it, Games Workshop by HPHatecraft · · Score: 1

    p.s. your Warhammer RPG sucks!

  70. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by _KiTA_ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is ridiculous. If I were her, I'd call up the company and ask them if I could license their trademark for my existing book for $1 in perpetuity. This would resolve the issue of them being forced to defend their trademark.

    If that didn't work, I'd remove the book from Amazon UK, because I wouldn't want to be sued in the UK by this UK-based company, but then I'd file a counter-DMCA takedown on Amazon - US?

    I don't know if this is good legal advice. I'm not a lawyer. But this is what I would do if I had a ebook under my name. Either that, or since it's a ebook, I would just rename the book and just do like Prince did and append at the end of its name (formerly known as "Spots the Space Marines")

    $1 in perpetuity? That sounds reasonable, which suggests to me you've never heard of Games Workshop before.

    This is the company that sues people who try to sell their products online, because they feel that they're the only ones with the right to use a shopping cart (You can check out The War Store for a brief explanation of this)
     
    ... that requires gaming stores that want to stock them give them a percentage of their store in free shelf space and make huge orders just to order anything at all...
     
    ...that banned exports to Australia because due to exchange rate shenanigans, it is literally cheaper to buy their product in the UK and pay shipping to Aus/NZ than to buy it from Games Workshop.

    Games Workshop is not a company that is in any way reasonable. The only reason they're even still around is they have a very large amount of inertia and have some rather delightfully interesting storylines -- interesting enough that Blizzard ripped them off wholesale to make Warcraft (Warhammer Fantasy) and Starcraft (Warhammer 40k).
     
    ... Having said that, and descending completely into the frothy rant stage of the evening, the game itself is disgustingly overpriced, sub-par from a rule and balance standpoint, perpetually and intentionally traps their customers in a forced upgrade cycle... It's literally only a matter of time before Privateer Press or Wizards of the Coast buy them out.

    But yeah. GW is a bit butthurt because of Blizzard wholesale stealing, well, everything that Blizzard has been successful with in the past 20 years from Games Workshop. I'm not terribly surprised they're more vigilant nowadays.

  71. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Doesn't matter what the truth is or not, or whether a trademark is valid or not, or even what the law says. What matters is who has the lawyers and who doesn't. If you can't afford to fight a bully then the bully wins no matter what the law says.

  72. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by wytcld · · Score: 1

    There is no trademark or copyright for book titles. Period. Ever. In the US. You'll find multiple books of the same title, often, sometimes published within a year or two of each other. If there were a way to use trademark or copyright to prevent that, you can be sure we wouldn't see this.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  73. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by antdude · · Score: 1

    Doesn't Apple have this name for its backup software? :P

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  74. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no he didn't. slashdot received a takedown notice. someone has trademarked the full phrase.

  75. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    So if I create a game based on Jules Verne's Captain Nemo and get a trademark for it I can go after all the free eBooks?
    Profit!!

    I wonder if captainnemo.com is available?

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  76. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    and there is no penalty for violating them.

    This is dangerously false, at least in the United States (where Amazon lives). Google the Lanham Act.

  77. Games Workshop Customer service email address by sdguero · · Score: 1

    CustServ@gwplc.com

    Send them a message. I know I did.

  78. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by GodInHell · · Score: 1

    Trademarks don't have to be registered to be enforceable. They just need to be commonly associated with a particular brand, such that use by another in that same field is likely to cause confusion in the marketplace as to the origin of that product or service.

  79. Grody! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes. They make you do the dishes and ... clean the cat box. Grody!

  80. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never heard of base dumping?

  81. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    The problem here being that what was taken down was an eBook, which is considered to be software

    I don't see how that's relevant for a trademark that covers software for playing games.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  82. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    GW's ripped off Elisabeth Beresford's design.

    Refer them to Arkell v Pressdram.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  83. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by dwywit · · Score: 1

    GW also acquired Talisman, removed all female characters, substituted minotaurs and other stupid relics from other games, and released "Talisman third edition". Should've been called "Turd Edition". I was mighty pleased when the fourth edition came out looking much better. My nephew borrowed my second edition and promptly lent it to someone else, and it never came back.
     
    Yeah, the best thing you can say about GW is that they have a flawed outlook on the world of tabletop gaming.

    --
    They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
  84. Too Generic To Deserve A Trademark by bmo · · Score: 1

    A "Space Marine" term is self descriptive and generic. It's so generic that I believe that if it was challenged, they'd lose the trademark "Space Marine" to "space marine" type games. Now if there was "Space Marine" facial tissue (if it was registered that way), then there might be a defense of the trademark, because it would be unique in relation to facial tissue. But not to video games with space marine characters and themes?. Nope. Public Domain.

    Microsoft almost lost their trademark to Windows because it was challenged as too generic. Before a decision was given, Microsoft handed over a pile of money to get Linspire to shut up about it.

    --
    BMO

  85. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, that would be the i Space Marine :p

  86. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by countach · · Score: 1

    I think she should register the trademark in another jurisdiction, and then sue the back. Mutually assured destruction then.

  87. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Basically, you can have a trademark on common phrases as long as the use of the term would create confusion and it isn't so generic as to refer to an entire class of things.

    You can't if that phrase is merely a description of the product. "Garage Doors" would not be a valid trademark in relation to closures for car houses, but it would for cakes or hats.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  88. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My solution to the "intentionally traps their customers in a forced upgrade cycle" was to switch to WarMachine. Haven't looked back. I refuse to give my money to a company that sues fans for making fansites, etc. This case is just one of many many examples. Here's more examples: 4th ed to 5th ed: Lets jack up the prices on vehicles, then make them overpowered so people have to buy them. 5th ed to 6th ed: Lets create expensive flyers, then make them overpowered so people have to buy them. ANY EDITION: someone figured out how powerful this unit is, so people want to play it, lets jack up the prices on it. And lets not start on their "finecast" that breaks at the slightest handling or exposure to sun/heat. I think thats enough of a rant. So basically I'm trying to say that this is business as usual for GW.

  89. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    1932, really... so 80 years later someone claims copyright on a science fiction concept almost as old as the phrase science fiction? Someone has balls.

    They're claiming trademark, not copyright, which is why it's so odd that they used the DMCA for this. It's also strange that they would assert it against an author.

    Thanks for the clarification and the extra info. ( I do know the difference between trademark and copyright, I just misread.)

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  90. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    and there is no penalty for violating them.

    This is dangerously false, at least in the United States (where Amazon lives). Google the Lanham Act.

    Okay, I just googled it, and I don't see anything false about my statement. From the wiki: These provisions can be used to restrict, through the use of injunctions and damages, the importation of goods that infringe or counterfeit registered trademarks.

    Since "common law" == "not registered", I stand by original my statement.

  91. For Dummies(R) by tepples · · Score: 1

    There is no trademark or copyright for book titles. Period. Ever. In the US.

    Then explain Wiley's FOR DUMMIES mark and what its owners have done.

    1. Re:For Dummies(R) by Ocker3 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a bad example, they went after a non-profit org (as denoted by their .org domain). They tried to enforce their mark, but look to have failed in that case.

  92. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by tepples · · Score: 1

    I thought linking to a specific version worked only while a page hasn't been moved.

  93. Doom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first mention of a "space marine" that I remember was in the first Doom game, for PC.

  94. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Gription · · Score: 1

    No trademarks for software. The trademarks are "a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services". The phrase used in an ad, as part of the packaging, or a logo would be the limit of the use of a trademark.

  95. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Garridan · · Score: 1

    Okay, I just googled it, ....

    FTFY.

  96. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Comrade+Ogilvy · · Score: 2

    More precisely, if you cannot afford to fight the bully, you always lose. You can choose to lose now or lose big in lawyer fees -- because even if you win in court and the bully loses, you can be 100% sure you shot yourself in your own bank account.

  97. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    You left out force field and warp drive.

  98. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    It sounds like they registered it as a trademark for use in video games or other game-related software, not a feature in the software.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  99. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

    Assuming you mean the pointy nosed space marine helmets?

    --

    Yay me!

  100. Hooray! The End of Space Marines by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe this will finally cause the term space marine to fall out of common use, and end the "space is an ocean" sci-fi trope for good. Good riddance, and thanks for taking care of this nuisance, trademark trolls!

  101. In the grim darkness of the far future by dbug78 · · Score: 1

    ...there is only trademark infringement.

  102. Popehat to the rescue by pitchpatch · · Score: 2
    Popehat put up it's signal. Please help.

    "I know you are out there, gamers and science fiction readers. Even if you're not an attorney, you can help. You can help by sending an email (edit: in the comments, Patrick offers the email to use) to Games Workshop telling them you won't buy their products while they engage in meritless trademark bullying. (Edit: or communicate with them by their Twitter account, https://twitter.com/VoxCaster.) You can help by spreading this story — and getting others involved — on every gaming and science fiction blog and board and forum out there. Inflict upon Games Workshop the consequences of their actions."

  103. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and there is no penalty for violating them.

    This is dangerously false, at least in the United States (where Amazon lives). Google the Lanham Act.

    Okay, I just googled it, and I don't see anything false about my statement. From the wiki: These provisions can be used to restrict, through the use of injunctions and damages, the importation of goods that infringe or counterfeit registered trademarks.

    Since "common law" == "not registered", I stand by original my statement.

    GP is right. Actions for infringement of a registered mark are unde sec. 32 of the Lanham Act. Actions for infringement of an *un*registered mark - I,e., a "common law" mark - are under sec. 43(a) of the Lanham Act. There's a reason why wiki is useful as a guide to find primary sources, like the statute, but is not a replacement for those sources,

    And yes, I am an IP lawyer.

  104. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by russotto · · Score: 1

    "Time Machine" for backup software is a "suggestive" mark (no, that has nothing to do with porn). However, "Time Machine" for a machine which travels in time or allows users to travel in time, would be generic, and not eligible for trademarking.

  105. crowd action by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was curious about this "Games Workshop" so I performed a Google search on the term. There was an advertising link for the company so I clicked it and found their site. If you want to learn more about Games Workshop, you can also search for the name and click on the ad. I think that advertisers like it when people click on their ads because it makes them feel like they're reaching an audience. Maybe lots of people will want to read about Games Workshop and click the advertising links to find the site, and everyone will be happy!!

  106. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by bogjobber · · Score: 1

    The ironic thing is that (at least according to rumor) Blizzard actually wanted Warcraft to be a Warhammer game, but GW was so anal about protecting their IP that they refused to license it. So they missed out out on roughly a kajillion dollars of profit and brand exposure and the video games they came out with in the 90s were pretty mediocre.

  107. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He couldn't use the full phrase. It was trademarked.

  108. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Games Workshop the owner of that section of Wikipedia?

  109. Oh my, oh my... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America is a place full of batshit crazy person, it seems. You'll need a lawyer just to breath some air in the near future, I'm afraid...

    Being serious: it's the apotheosis of the liberalism, a jungle where only the strongest (i.e. the one with more money) can survive killing all the other.

  110. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by julesh · · Score: 1

    There is no trademark or copyright for book titles. Period. Ever. In the US.

    Depends on the title. If it consists of terms that are considered generic, or are descriptive of the content, then you're right. However, try releasing a book called "Lord of the Rings 2" or "Star Wars: Jedis vs Ninjas" and see if you successfully defend against the inevitable trademark violation suits, even if your books otherwise have nothing in common with the original works whose names you have reused.

  111. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by julesh · · Score: 1

    Further to my above comment -- see: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9907256353585916992&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr in which a US court held that the title "The Book of Virtues" was eligible for trademark protection, because it had acquired "secondary meaning", i.e. it was associated by consumers with a particular source. Now, I make no argument that this is true for "space marines" -- it blatantly isn't -- but it does mean that your suggestion that book titles in the US cannot be trademarks is clearly wrong.

  112. Lego Space Marines too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lego were hit recently too.

    The Lego Cuusoo site that lets fan submit ideas for new sets had a Space Marine one up, and it's now been forced to drop the Space Marine name.

    Which is stupid.

  113. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by rioki · · Score: 1

    Nemo, is that not a trademark of Pixar? ^_^

  114. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

    It's even more ironic since GW ripped almost all of their material off from Aliens, D&D, Michael Moorcock, and of course daddy Tolkien. The only thing that makes them different from other clone stamps is the quality of their art, which is great stuff

  115. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by spain · · Score: 3, Informative

    The ironic thing is that (at least according to rumor) Blizzard actually wanted Warcraft to be a Warhammer game, but GW was so anal about protecting their IP that they refused to license it. So they missed out out on roughly a kajillion dollars of profit and brand exposure and the video games they came out with in the 90s were pretty mediocre.

    Not just a rumor: http://kotaku.com/5929161/how-warcraft-was-almost-a-warhammer-game-and-how-that-saved-wow If Games Workshop had eased up on the stubbornness and need to control everything, millions of people would be playing (and paying for) "World of Warhammer" instead of "World of Warcraft".

  116. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

    It's even more ironic since GW ripped almost all of their material off from Aliens, D&D, Michael Moorcock, and of course daddy Tolkien. The only thing that makes them different from other clone stamps is the quality of their art, which is great stuff

    The novels are pretty good too.

    --
    No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
  117. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by splutty · · Score: 1

    It's called the Skillex method.

    Making a giant bass drop.

    Also reference http://what-if.xkcd.com/12/ :)

    --
    Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
  118. It appears to be listed at Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1470131056/
    Maybe someone at Amazon realized their error.

  119. stop! thief! by __aapspi39 · · Score: 1

    This story reminded about a couple of painted AD&D figures I pinched from their shop in hammersmith many years back. The best of them, was a thief/assassin that I still have somewhere.

    Now the slight sense of guilt over how he came to join my little crew of dungeon explorers has been allayed by the workshops dastardly behavior, I shall find him and he'll have a proud spot on my mantelpiece. His backstabbing days can be relived, free of shame. Thanks slashdot!!!

  120. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And yet you still don't see anything wrong with your legal system? All civillized countries make the loser pay, especially in case of riduculous litigation. Kinda makes you think real hard if it's worth the trouble to sue. Also pretty much kills the "sue them, they are poor and have to settle" attack.

  121. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah the Black Library, good fun indeed if you got the right novellist. Some of them didn't work at all but some of the stuff by Gordon Rennie and Anthony Reynolds was amazing.

  122. Interesting since they ripped it off by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    What I find most interesting is that the whole space marine thing was ripped off from SF authors.

    Or at least that's how I remember it back when I was writing in SF and gaming magazines in the 1980s.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  123. Re:Quick, someone trademark the term "Time Machine by zipn00b · · Score: 1

    I seem to recall that the Tyranids originally looked too much like Aliens and got changed a bit. Overall though yeah they seem to think they can claim IP protection on stuff they've copied themselves. I have no love for them and, to be brutally honest, consider their art quality as "good" and not "great" ..........

  124. Gamers on Games interviews Maggie Hogarth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,
    My name is Dave "Knighthawk" Simpson. I host a Youtube channel called Gamers on Games. We just did an interview with Maggie Hogarth about her trademark dispute with Games Workshop. Please watch, subscribe, and share! We really want to help rally more support for her. Thanks!

    http://youtu.be/JnSTuSW5w7E
    http://www.youtube.com/gamersongames