KickStarter Free Stars: Children of Infinity - upcoming Star Control 2 sequel from Fred Ford's Pistol Shrimp Games - Kickstarter Live

[Dexter]

Only two extremely butthurt individuals in here, who also manage to come off as extremely idiotic.

 

[Zarniwoop]

2 communists are 2 too many.

 

[:Flash:]

Yes. Property laws be damned. It is whoever that can come up with a better use for your house who should own your house.

More like a millionaire who owns an empty house in the Caymans as some kind of tax write-off but doesn't allow anyone to live in it. Yes, I say fuck that guy.

This mindset "better someone should do something with the IP than it just sitting around" is why we have such masterpieces as the Brian Herbert Dune novels, the post-Goscinny Asterix or the New Star Wars.
On the contrary, it is far better that an IP fall into disuse than it be dishonored by someone else. I for one am very happy that nobody so far was allowed to spoil Tintin or Lord of the Rings by writing pointless cash-grabs.

 

[Zombra]

This mindset "better someone should do something with the IP than it just sitting around" is why we have such masterpieces as the Brian Herbert Dune novels, the post-Goscinny Asterix or the New Star Wars.

Cheerfully conceded. It's also why we have stuff like XCOM: Long War, The Dark Mod, the wesp patch, the excellent L. Sprague de Camp completions of Howard's unfinished novels, all Batman since 1950 ... continuations aren't bad because they have new authors, but because they have bad authors.

 

[:Flash:]

If someone is a good author, it would be better if he spent his creativity on something original than on yet another Batman reboot.

 

[Zombra]

If someone is a good author, it would be better if he spent his creativity on something original than on yet another Batman reboot.

Sounds like you have "One True Way" that all creative work should be done. Don't stifle artists bro.

 

[mastroego]

If someone is a good author, it would be better if he spent his creativity on something original than on yet another Batman reboot.

A good author could still be in love with something that remained unfinished, just like we can.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

What's strange to me is Brad going from acknowledging that Fred and Paul own the IP in 2013 to the position that Stardock has the IP licensing rights but he's respectfully refusing to use them. A basic reading of the contract seems to refute this claim, so I don't know why he's saying this. Either he knows something we don't, such as quirks of the law, precedents, secret royalties, etc., or he (and/or his lawyer) are blustering fools.

The other issue is that, no matter what happens now, these shenanigans are unlikely to impress hardcore Star Control fans, who you would think are the people most likely to buy his game. He could have avoided all of this by just making a SC-knockoff and calling it something else. He may end all of this with a piece of paper saying he is right, and no customers.

Paul and Fred (or at least whichever one writes that blog) seem a bit like kooks to me though. I get aspie tells from the whole thing. It does make sense because they make very kooky games. But maybe they need some.... adult supervision? Its like, they are being sued, it's a big deal, and they need money, so they call their donation drive the "frungy defense fund." Come on guys, this is serious, stop making jokes. Yeah I get it, but try explaining that to someone who doesn't. "Well you see it's about this alien sport called frungy played by the zoq-fot-pik..." You lost me, you want money for alien sports? What?

I can imagine the deposition right now:

Attorney: "Mr. Reiche, why do you think you are in the right here?"
Paul: "FRUNGY FRUNGY FRUNGY!"

 

[Elestan]

What's strange to me is Brad going from acknowledging that Fred and Paul own the IP in 2013 to the position that Stardock has the IP licensing rights but he's respectfully refusing to use them. A basic reading of the contract seems to refute this claim, so I don't know why he's saying this. Either he knows something we don't, such as quirks of the law, precedents, secret royalties, etc., or he (and/or his lawyer) are blustering fools.

My best guess is that when he found out P&F were making a potentially competing game, he told his lawyers to look for loopholes in the old contract, and they came up with something that might work if you squint at it. The problem with that is that contracts, to a great degree, depend on the understanding and intent of the parties who signed them. So even if he found some wording he can twist to claim more rights, he'll have to explain why Accolade didn't seem to feel that it had those rights.

[Brad] could have avoided all of this by just making a SC-knockoff and calling it something else. He may end all of this with a piece of paper saying he is right, and no customers.

Actually, he could have used the name "Star Control" without argument; P&F didn't contest his ownership of that name until he sued them. All they wanted was for him to not use the setting and story from SC1&2, and to be left in peace to make the sequel to the story from SC2 that everyone's been waiting to see for 25 years.

Paul and Fred (or at least whichever one writes that blog) seem a bit like kooks to me though.

That's probably not inaccurate. My sense is that Paul is the kooky one, while Fred seems like more of the straight man.

 

[Makabb]

"frungy defense fund." Come on guys, this is serious, stop making jokes. Yeah I get it, but try explaining that to someone who doesn't. "Well you see it's about this alien sport called frungy played by the zoq-fot-pik..." You lost me, you want money for alien sports? What?

It's totaly obvious, they want funds to defend frungy which is a part of the Star Control game, which means they want to defend the rights to Star Control.

How can someone not get it ?

 

[JBro]

So when do the courts decide that Stardock can get all up in them Star Control guts, and the other 2 spergs can fuck off?

 

[Elestan]

I assume you are asking when the trial is. The Dispositive Motion Hearing, when many questions of law will be decided, is March 13. The trial itself is June 24.

However, there is a preliminary injunction motion that the judge is currently evaluating; her ruling on it could give some insight as to whose arguments have more merit on a few of the questions in the case relating to the copyrights.

 

[Cael]

I assume you are asking when the trial is. The Dispositive Motion Hearing, when many questions of law will be decided, is March 13. The trial itself is June 24.

However, there is a preliminary injunction motion that the judge is currently evaluating; her ruling on it could give some insight as to whose arguments have more merit on a few of the questions in the case relating to the copyrights.

The judge should have blocked the release of the game at least until she had made her judgement. Now that it is out and the fraud has taken the customers' money, it doesn't really matter which way the ruling goes any more.

 

[Elestan]

The judge should have blocked the release of the game at least until she had made her judgement.

Paul and Fred didn't ask her to, and a judge won't (and probably can't) issue such a restraining order unless someone formally requests it.

 

[DeepOcean]

Yes. Property laws be damned. It is whoever that can come up with a better use for your house who should own your house.

More like a millionaire who owns an empty house in the Caymans as some kind of tax write-off but doesn't allow anyone to live in it. Yes, I say fuck that guy.

Retarded comparison, a house is a physical good, if the house was made by the guy own money, if he built the house with his own money and isn't a drug dealer or a politician, stealing that is theft pure and simple. You have a house and he doesn't, you stole his labor so the person would be a filthy parasite. Copyright is different, you don't steal labor from other people if you copy their ideas, they still can publish their things and you can still publish your things based on the same material.

Without copyright, we might have the retarded Bethesda games and real Fallout games at the same time, I don't see how some company wanting to make a Fallout classic game should be stopped because ZionMax bought the rights to beat you into a pulp and throwing you into a cage because you dared using certain names and setting ideas on your game.

 

[Zombra]

if he built the house with his own money and isn't a drug dealer or a politician, stealing that is theft

It seems we agree though that there are abuses of tax and property law that are not desirable. Offshore holdings, tax shelters, burning crops to increase the price, there are lots of situations that are driven by economics and even understandable from one point of view but really aren't good.

 

[Cael]

Retarded comparison, a house is a physical good, if the house was made by the guy own money, if he built the house with his own money and isn't a drug dealer or a politician, stealing that is theft pure and simple. You have a house and he doesn't, you stole his labor so the person would be a filthy parasite. Copyright is different, you don't steal labor from other people if you copy their ideas, they still can publish their things and you can still publish your things based on the same material.

Without copyright, we might have the retarded Bethesda games and real Fallout games at the same time, I don't see how some company wanting to make a Fallout classic game should be stopped because ZionMax bought the rights to beat you into a pulp and throwing you into a cage because you dared using certain names and setting ideas on your game.

Wrong! Just because the guy didn't do physical labour to build a world and dream up of interactions between factions doesn't mean the guy didn't expend labour on his project.

 

[Trans-Financial-Man]

Like most RPG Codex arguments this is getting bogged down in minutiae and overly autistic babel. Anyway here's my autistic babel.

I've been looking forward to both games. However I really struggle to believe Fred and Paul when they imply they're struggled to make a SC sequel for years now after all the money Skylanders made them. The court kickstarter thing is another slap in the face for me. No guys, you don't get to act like hard up indie darlings when you made a multi billion dollar franchise that you milked to death and didn't fucking make any Star Control games for years. you expect me to just nod my head and believe your gaslighting bullshit when another game comes along? Piss off I'll play Stardock's game and I'll play your game supposing at least one of those is good. But fuck off trying to act like you're in touch with the fans. No you aren't, stop with the bullshit and make the game.

As much as I like Brad Wardell's attitude towards the Games Journalism clique I really take issue with his ability to explain himself with regards to this lawsuit. Also he occasionally pops his head up on various places. People explain basic legal concepts to him or try to make sense of all the shit he says that doesn't add up and he either ignores them or re-interprets what they say as an attack on him. Now he's sperging out trying to get the UQM forums shut down because they call him out on what he himself has said.

As I mentioned further behind in this thread. Why can't these idiots just stop arguing and stick to their lanes. This is something that is so unclear I think neither party actually understands what they really own and this all should of been worked out between two rational parties. Perhaps with a legal adviser involved. It should of been done behind closed doors where all autistic shit-sprees can be done privately without embarrassing either party and tarnishing the reputation of Star Control. Ignore the bullshit about theft and the derailing into communism blah blah blah. I don't care who owns what just make good games you fucking reprobates.

 

[Kruno]

I have an idea that will solve this deadlock with the Pauls and Wardell.

Both parties give me the rights they have for SC and I give them to J. E. Sawyer to make SC: The Next Generation.

 

[Elestan]

I really struggle to believe Fred and Paul when they imply they're struggled to make a SC sequel for years now after all the money Skylanders made them.

I understand the frustration; I've been wanting a sequel for a long time. However, note that their studio, Toys for Bob, was acquired by Activision in 2005. Since then, they have not had the autonomy to decide what their studio worked on, and Activision would be the one receiving the profits from their games (though I'm sure they received good salaries). Less than a year after they were acquired, they tried a petition to get Activision to let them make a new Star Control game. However, the petition didn't attract enough signers, indicating to Activition that the franchise lacked mass audience appeal.

Some have suggested that they should have worked on it on their spare time. The best information I've found on this is in one of their emails to Brad:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Paul Reiche wrote:
Unfortunately, our employment relationship does not permit us to participate in outside projects – most especially ones which are for-profit.

This is not really surprising to anyone who's worked in the software industry. Very few employers will allow their employees to work on potentially competing projects (which in Activision's case means games) while employed. Most employment agreements in the industry contain clauses that forfeit the rights to any such work, even if it was done on the employee's own time.

So they could not convince Activision to let them do it in-house, and they could not work on it as a side project. What would their next option be? Short of quitting their jobs, the best option I can think of would be for them to save up enough money to personally fund the development of the game as an indie title, and then convince Activision to let them go on extended leave to work on it. Which, as near as I can tell, is what happened last Fall.

Do you see a different path that would have led to us getting a sequel sooner?

 

[Cael]

I really struggle to believe Fred and Paul when they imply they're struggled to make a SC sequel for years now after all the money Skylanders made them.

I understand the frustration; I've been wanting a sequel for a long time. However, note that their studio, Toys for Bob, was acquired by Activision in 2005. Since then, they have not had the autonomy to decide what their studio worked on, and Activision would be the one receiving the profits from their games (though I'm sure they received good salaries). Less than a year after they were acquired, they tried a petition to get Activision to let them make a new Star Control game. However, the petition didn't attract enough signers, indicating to Activition that the franchise lacked mass audience appeal.

Some have suggested that they should have worked on it on their spare time. The best information I've found on this is in one of their emails to Brad:

On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Paul Reiche wrote:
Unfortunately, our employment relationship does not permit us to participate in outside projects – most especially ones which are for-profit.

This is not really surprising to anyone who's worked in the software industry. Very few employers will allow their employees to work on potentially competing projects (which in Activision's case means games) while employed. Most employment agreements in the industry contain clauses that forfeit the rights to any such work, even if it was done on the employee's own time.

So they could not convince Activision to let them do it in-house, and they could not work on it as a side project. What would their next option be? Short of quitting their jobs, the best option I can think of would be for them to save up enough money to personally fund the development of the game as an indie title, and then convince Activision to let them go on extended leave to work on it. Which, as near as I can tell, is what happened last Fall.

Do you see a different path that would have led to us getting a sequel sooner?

To the criminal thugs, yes: You just make one and to hell with IP laws and Fred and Paul's rights.

They are not arguing whether stardick's theft was right or wrong. They are bemoaning that it should have been done sooner.

 

[Zarniwoop]

But ololollolollolollololo Starcock made a game so everybody wins right?

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Oof. Wardell is playing hardball. He's actually going after what's left of the original Star Control community.

This post is found on the Ur-Quan Masters forum:

A little while ago, Stardock, through its CEO Brad Wardell (known as ‘Frogboy’ on this forum), has contacted me to — in his words — ‘alleviate concerns that Stardock's trademark enforcement might have negative consequences for the UQM project.’
He did this not by unilaterally granting the community the use of the trademarks which Stardock claimed it had, but by offering what he called a ‘license agreement’. By signing this document, I would have stated that Stardock owns these trademarks (including ‘The Ur-Quan Masters’ and alien and ship names) and I would assign any rights I myself have regarding these to Stardock.
Even though I do not see how Stardock could be owning any of these trademarks other than ‘Star Control’ — unless it recently bought them from Paul Reiche and Fred Ford — by signing this contract, I could have actually given Stardock some claim on them. After all, the UQM project has been actively using these trademarks since 2002. (I by the way offered to Paul and Fred to transfer any claim that I might have on these trademarks, to them, gratis.)

I do not know whether I am legally allowed to post the complete mail exchange with the legal documents, but I will include here my response to Brad and his legal team, which should give some insight in what he asked of me:

Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 19:44:13 +0200 (CEST)
From: Serge van den Boom
To: Brad Wardell
Cc: Henry Pailing, legal@stardock.com, David May
Subject: Re: The Ur-Quan Masters project

Hi Brad,

I am glad that Stardock is supportive of the UQM project, and that you
want to alleviate the fan concerns that Stardock's trademark enforcement
might have negative consequences for the UQM project.

I do not feel, however, that signing an agreement is necessary, or
indeed, in the best interest of the UQM project, or the community.

First of all, I do not have any reason to conclude that you in fact have
any tenable claim to the The Ur-Quan Masters trademark; the assets which
Stardock bought from the Atari bankruptcy sale included no claims on
this trademark, nor have you yourself used it in commerce.
On the other hand, we (the UQM team), and creators of spin-off projects,
have been continuously using 'The Ur-Quan Masters', under the auspices
of Paul Reiche and Fred Ford, since 2001.

Second, in your agreement, you want us to state that Stardock *does* own
the trademark rights, and to the extend that *we* do, assign those
trademark rights to Stardock. That seems like a step backwards to me.

Third, if we were to sign your agreement, we could not transfer or
sublicense the rights which you gave to us, which is incompatible with
an Open Source project which could be abandoned and continued by
different people at any time.

Fourth, if you do not like the way in which we use the trademarks, you
could in theory unilaterally revoke the license at any time, leaving us
with nothing.

That said, I do think that there is a genuine concern within the fan
community that Stardock's trademark enforcement might have negative
consequences for the UQM project. Not because it is perceived that your
trademark claims would stand up to scrutiny, but because a small Open
Source project of a few individuals is no match against a large company
backed by a law firm, if that company were to decide to use the Open
Source project as a pawn in a legal battle with the original creators of
the game.

Fortunately, there is a way to alleviate those concerns, and show the
fans that you would not act in bad faith against the community.

What I am suggesting is that you unilaterally grant a full and
non-revocable license to whatever necessary intellectual property rights
you hold to the community. It is my understanding that it is in fact not
required to have the licensee assert that the licensor actually has the
rights they are licensing; you could instead say 'to the degree that we
own ...'.

You could probably just publish such a license grant on Stardock's
website, and it would put a few minds at ease.

Please consider it. After all, with your new game on the way, some
positive attention is always welcome.


Regards,

Serge van den Boom


On behalf of the UQM core team:
Serge van den Boom
Mika Kolehmainen
Michael Chapman Martin
Alex Volkov

I understand that other members of the community have been approached by Stardock. By posting this, I hope to avoid that any others who have their own UQM-derived project, sign an agreement which could hurt not just them, but Paul and Fred as well.

The ugly
Now a little while after I sent my response to Brad, I was contacted by someone (who wishes to remain anonymous) with screenshots purportedly from Stardock's #sco-elite channel. In one of these screenshots the user ‘Draginol’ — a name which is used by Brad Wardell — posted the email exchange between Brad and me. Another screenshot was this one:

Note the line about eliminating this community (‘and star-control.com as well’).

I have no means to verify that these screenshots are genuine, so keep this in mind when forming your opinion. Considering the potential impact on the UQM community however, I thought it was important to share this. I can confirm however that the email posted in the screenshot by ‘Draginol’ appears to be the one which I sent to Brad, and I have only sent a copy of this to a few trusted others.

For me personally, these events, combined with Stardock's legal actions against Paul and Fred, are enough that I will never buy another Stardock game as long as Brad Wardell is its CEO and Stardock hasn't dropped the lawsuit against Paul and Fred.
I apologise to Stardock's other developers who have nothing at all to do with these unpleasantries and are just trying to create a fun game and earn a living.

Read that screencap carefully.

The same community that has kept the game alive for the past 25 years... they are the only reason the Star Control license is worth anything in the first place. The Ur-Quan Masters project is the single biggest reason people are aware of Star Control in the 21st century. And this is the thanks they get from Brad Wardell? That he employs Bethesda's approach towards fan communities, by destroying them?

You can read the rest of the thread for yourself here

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Wardell attempting damage control:

Greetings!

I appreciate you bringing this up as it allows us to clear the air on this topic.

As some of you know, when the trademark concerns between Stardock and Paul and Fred heated up, Stardock began to register the trademarks it believes it inherited from its Accolade/Atari acquisition. One of these trademarks is the sub-title to Star Control II (The Ur-Quan Masters).

After this occurred, a number of UQM community members urged us to send Serge a license agreement for the trademarks (as you can read in the comments here over and over again https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/).

I also repeatedly stated that I did not believe that UQM requires a trademark license because it is not engaging in commerce. Again, you can read in the comments of that thread, I probably said, at least 20 times in that thread (or more) that I do not believe that UQM requires a trademark license because it is not engaging in commerce.

Nevertheless, members of the community insisted that we needed to send Serge and co a trademark license in order to send a message that Stardock would not interfere with the UQM project. Thus, this past Summer, I relented and asked the lawyers to draft up a very short licensing agreement for the trademarks in question and sent it over.

Your first response was simply to state that you didn't think you needed to sign a licensing agreement which echoed my position and I've seen no reason to pursue it further. If I don't see a reason and you don't see a reason then when should we invest time and energy pursuing it further?

With regards to my *private* venting regarding some of the extremely toxic and hate-filled posts that have been directed at me *personally* from this forum. It is true that on occasion I have vented that this forum (not the project but the forum) should be shut down. However, each time, Death999 has demonstrated an even-handed moderation to remove the more excessive of the hate from some of the new (all new as of this year) posters that have entered the community. This doesn't make it okay to even entertain such opinions. But I don't claim to be anything but flawed human being either. This project has been very difficult given the controversy and abuse that has often been directed at me personally. But I would like to think that most of you understand the difference between being angry versus acting on that anger.

We have not, nor do we plan to, take any action against any Star Control fan community.

Stardock is one of the oldest independent game developers in the industry. It is supported by countless fan communities. We have never, in all that time, done anything to intefrere with any of them.

He claims he only wants the forum shut down. Good thing this is not the UQM Codex, isn't it?

 

[Infinitron]

I believe Brad that he doesn't want to shut down UQM.

But that outburst does increase my suspicion that the position he's staked out in his dealings with Reiche & Ford is legally untenable. He's hotheaded.