Why would they refund you if the IP of the game is in question? If Stardock loses, they have to pay Ford and Reiche all proceeds from their sales. The consumers are not out anything.
If the evidence from Ford and Reiche are to be believed, they objected to the game for years in their correspondence with Stardock if it contained any IP from SC1 and SC2. Stardock constantly assured them that the game they were developing would not. Near the time of release, Stardock changed their tune and claimed they owned the IP from their Atari purchase even declaring that Ford and Reiche didn't create the original games but were contractors.
Yes Stardock paid $400K for something at a bankruptcy sale; however, if you've ever bought anything at an estate or bankruptcy, buyer beware is the general disclaimer. Sometimes people buy priceless gems; sometimes they buy cosmetic junk.
Not quite. Ford and Reiche also claim that the 1988 agreement terminated certain rights if they were not paid royalties every year. When Atari put SC1 and SC2 on sale on GOG, they had to work out a new agreement because they had not been paid in more than a decade.
I would say the IP is complicated not fuzzy based on Stardock's behavior. If Stardock believes it owned the IP in question, why did they ask repeated over the course of a year for those IP rights from Ford and Reiche? As for Stardock spending $400K, that's their fault for buying something during a bankruptcy sale that does not have the value they think it had. They should have done their homework.
Also Stardock should have paid attention to the situation. Ford and Reiche had a 1988 licensing agreement with Accolade with Accolade owning certain things like the trademark but Ford and Reiche owning other things. Stardock believed it purchased all necessary IP when it bought out Atari's assets (who had purchased Accolade) when Atari when bankrupt. However two things should have alerted Stardock that this claim was tenuous. First was the 2002 open source version of SC2 called The Urquan Masters which was initially released by Ford and Reiche and not opposed by Atari. Second was the 2011 inclusion of Star Control 1 and 2 on the GOG store. As soon as it went on sale, Ford and Reiche objected and contacted Atari who worked out a new licensing agreement with Ford and Reiche.
The Urquan Masters port is telling because it does not use the Star Control name (trademarked by Accolade) but is essentially the same game as SC2. If Ford and Reiche didn't have IP rights they could not have open sourced it. During the incident with the sale on GOG, Atari all but admitted that it did not own the rights to SC1 or SC2. Thus when Stardock bought Atari's assets later, Stardock could not have bought the Star Control rights.
If you read more about the downfall of Sears, it had much to do with Lampert. Had he not interfered maybe Sears would have survived like Target and Walmart are doing well enough these days.
Yes those were factors, however, the fact that Sears was part of an LBO by Lampert which saddled them with huge amounts of debt was a significant factor. Also since he was the biggest creditor he installed himself as CEO and made sure he was enriching himself. For example, Sears sold off almost all of the valuable real estate properties to a company he owned then charged Sears exhorbitant rents.
But you were absolutely wrong on every point on it. But speaking of modern walls, how effective was the Berlin Wall? I've already linked where the wall in Israel has been less than effective. That's in addition to the tunnels they find all the time.
Go check [slashdot.org]. I started with the Israeli wall...
You know we can scroll up right?
Speaking of the unstoppable juggernaut of government, aren't you a bit worried about it trying to piss away billions of your dollars on something known not to work? I mean China built a wall far bigger and better than the one Trump wants, and that wasn't very effective...
The other poster started with the Great Wall. You brought in another wall without addressing the first point.
Israel's wall was never the point. You brought that in when it was clear that you were utterly wrong about the Great Wall.
But to address your point about "modern" walls, how many times was the Berlin Wall breached? That was an extremely guarded section of wall that was only a few miles long. Yet people breached it. Now you think that somehow a 2,000 mile will be easier to protect? [sarcasm] If only no one ever invents vehicles that go above or under a wall. Also as long as people can't use water based vehicles to go around the wall then the wall will be extremely effective.[/sarcasm]
I never said the existing wall was the only wall. That's a straw man argument. What was said was that it wasn't effective. Indeed the Mongols were not the only ones that invaded China from the north during that time. One factor in these conquests was the wall itself had been expensive to build and maintain and weaken the Han empire.
Genghis Khan (1162 - 1227), the founder of the Mongol Empire, was the only one who breached the Great Wall of China in its 2,700-year-history. In his lifetime, Genghis Khan led his Mongolian army to break through the Great Wall not only once, but several times at Wusha Fortress, Juyongguan, Zijingguan, and Tongguan, etc. These successes were a big help in overthrowing of the Jin Dynasty (1115 - 1234 AD) and founding of the Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368 AD).
But you keep wanting to ignore the fact (even Politifact confirms) that a wall works in Israel. You know, modern times, not people on horses... Why do you deny the fact that a wall cuts illegal entry by 99%?
The wall wasn't effective because it stopped short. It stopped in Jiayuguan, about smack-dab in the original borders of the Mongol Empire. Kublai Kahn simply had to ride around the end of it... And in modern times, we see - as I linked above - walls work. Even for determined illegal aliens.
Er what? The Jiayuguan great wall was built AFTER the Mongol led Yuan dynasty ended. The Mongols didn't have to ride around it as they had already conquered China by then. What you say is either a complete and utter lie or you have no sense of history of the great wall.
Bahahaha. You do realize that the Republicans changed the rules so that a majority (which the Republicans have) can end any filibuster. But please go on with your lies.
You do realize that the only source of ladders isn't the $300-500 ones from the hardware store right? It is one of humanity's oldest inventions. Also ladders are not one-time use items.
My understanding is that a large percentage of illegal immigrants did not cross the Mexican border but people who stayed after their visas expired. The wall will do nothing to keep them out.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would they refund you if the IP of the game is in question? If Stardock loses, they have to pay Ford and Reiche all proceeds from their sales. The consumers are not out anything.
If the evidence from Ford and Reiche are to be believed, they objected to the game for years in their correspondence with Stardock if it contained any IP from SC1 and SC2. Stardock constantly assured them that the game they were developing would not. Near the time of release, Stardock changed their tune and claimed they owned the IP from their Atari purchase even declaring that Ford and Reiche didn't create the original games but were contractors.
Yes Stardock paid $400K for something at a bankruptcy sale; however, if you've ever bought anything at an estate or bankruptcy, buyer beware is the general disclaimer. Sometimes people buy priceless gems; sometimes they buy cosmetic junk.
Not quite. Ford and Reiche also claim that the 1988 agreement terminated certain rights if they were not paid royalties every year. When Atari put SC1 and SC2 on sale on GOG, they had to work out a new agreement because they had not been paid in more than a decade.
I would say the IP is complicated not fuzzy based on Stardock's behavior. If Stardock believes it owned the IP in question, why did they ask repeated over the course of a year for those IP rights from Ford and Reiche? As for Stardock spending $400K, that's their fault for buying something during a bankruptcy sale that does not have the value they think it had. They should have done their homework.
Also Stardock should have paid attention to the situation. Ford and Reiche had a 1988 licensing agreement with Accolade with Accolade owning certain things like the trademark but Ford and Reiche owning other things. Stardock believed it purchased all necessary IP when it bought out Atari's assets (who had purchased Accolade) when Atari when bankrupt. However two things should have alerted Stardock that this claim was tenuous. First was the 2002 open source version of SC2 called The Urquan Masters which was initially released by Ford and Reiche and not opposed by Atari. Second was the 2011 inclusion of Star Control 1 and 2 on the GOG store. As soon as it went on sale, Ford and Reiche objected and contacted Atari who worked out a new licensing agreement with Ford and Reiche.
The Urquan Masters port is telling because it does not use the Star Control name (trademarked by Accolade) but is essentially the same game as SC2. If Ford and Reiche didn't have IP rights they could not have open sourced it. During the incident with the sale on GOG, Atari all but admitted that it did not own the rights to SC1 or SC2. Thus when Stardock bought Atari's assets later, Stardock could not have bought the Star Control rights.
If you believed you owned 100% of something why would you give away half?
Then you didn't look very closely. Almost everything is labeled in both pounds/ounces and grams/kilograms.
My recollection was that there was a OS 9 from Apple. Yes there was a trademark lawsuit which Apple won.
If you read more about the downfall of Sears, it had much to do with Lampert. Had he not interfered maybe Sears would have survived like Target and Walmart are doing well enough these days.
Yes those were factors, however, the fact that Sears was part of an LBO by Lampert which saddled them with huge amounts of debt was a significant factor. Also since he was the biggest creditor he installed himself as CEO and made sure he was enriching himself. For example, Sears sold off almost all of the valuable real estate properties to a company he owned then charged Sears exhorbitant rents.
But you were absolutely wrong on every point on it. But speaking of modern walls, how effective was the Berlin Wall? I've already linked where the wall in Israel has been less than effective. That's in addition to the tunnels they find all the time.
Go check [slashdot.org]. I started with the Israeli wall...
You know we can scroll up right?
Speaking of the unstoppable juggernaut of government, aren't you a bit worried about it trying to piss away billions of your dollars on something known not to work? I mean China built a wall far bigger and better than the one Trump wants, and that wasn't very effective...
The other poster started with the Great Wall. You brought in another wall without addressing the first point.
Israel's wall was never the point. You brought that in when it was clear that you were utterly wrong about the Great Wall.
But to address your point about "modern" walls, how many times was the Berlin Wall breached? That was an extremely guarded section of wall that was only a few miles long. Yet people breached it. Now you think that somehow a 2,000 mile will be easier to protect? [sarcasm] If only no one ever invents vehicles that go above or under a wall. Also as long as people can't use water based vehicles to go around the wall then the wall will be extremely effective.[/sarcasm]
I never said the existing wall was the only wall. That's a straw man argument. What was said was that it wasn't effective. Indeed the Mongols were not the only ones that invaded China from the north during that time. One factor in these conquests was the wall itself had been expensive to build and maintain and weaken the Han empire.
The pass was used by the Mongols, and that is why it didn't work.
You know we can research and debunk your lies.
Genghis Khan (1162 - 1227), the founder of the Mongol Empire, was the only one who breached the Great Wall of China in its 2,700-year-history. In his lifetime, Genghis Khan led his Mongolian army to break through the Great Wall not only once, but several times at Wusha Fortress, Juyongguan, Zijingguan, and Tongguan, etc. These successes were a big help in overthrowing of the Jin Dynasty (1115 - 1234 AD) and founding of the Yuan Dynasty (1271 - 1368 AD).
But you keep wanting to ignore the fact (even Politifact confirms) that a wall works in Israel. You know, modern times, not people on horses... Why do you deny the fact that a wall cuts illegal entry by 99%?
Again, a quick search says you're wrong.
The wall wasn't effective because it stopped short. It stopped in Jiayuguan, about smack-dab in the original borders of the Mongol Empire. Kublai Kahn simply had to ride around the end of it... And in modern times, we see - as I linked above - walls work. Even for determined illegal aliens.
Er what? The Jiayuguan great wall was built AFTER the Mongol led Yuan dynasty ended. The Mongols didn't have to ride around it as they had already conquered China by then. What you say is either a complete and utter lie or you have no sense of history of the great wall.
Please explain how every single link I've provided isn't good enough. Or is anything never good enough, denier.
Bahahaha. You do realize that the Republicans changed the rules so that a majority (which the Republicans have) can end any filibuster. But please go on with your lies.
They never supported a 2,000 mile wall that would cost billions to build much less maintain. But keep on with your strawmanning.
I think you haven't thought about the situation clearly or you'd see how silly your words are
Er what? The word "Khan" means ruler because the Great Wall wasn't effective.
You do realize that the only source of ladders isn't the $300-500 ones from the hardware store right? It is one of humanity's oldest inventions. Also ladders are not one-time use items.
My understanding is that a large percentage of illegal immigrants did not cross the Mexican border but people who stayed after their visas expired. The wall will do nothing to keep them out.
Please tell how it is the fault of the Democrats when the Republican controls the majority in both houses of Congress?