Hi Brad,

I was wondering if you could explain this line: I would think that fame, reputation and good will need to be earned. Whatever you may or may not own, the good will of fans of the original games doesn't simply transfer to you. Whoever made the original games (whether that be Fred and Paul or the mysterious other people), Stardock certainly didn't.

Look, it's pretty clear what is being said.

Ignore the clickbait media trying to hype it up...

But to translate the legalese for you...

Star Control was created by Accolade of which Fred and Paul were but two of many programmers. As such they are no more the creators than any of the other programmers.

As to the other part, after Stardock revealed their intention to release a new Star Control game, Fred and Paul chose to announce their "Star Control" game shortly after and by calling it a "direct sequel" they were tarnishing the trademark now owned by Stardock but never owned by Fred or Paul. It would be like George Lucas making a new Star Wars film after selling it to Disney. The difference here is that Fred and Paul never owned the name, Accolade did, which was legally transferred to Stardock.

Fred and Paul better have more than "we were original programmers and when Accolade went under the rights went poof so must be ours now". And this media warfare may harm them worse. The more they complain publicly that Star Control belongs to them, the more they are tarnishing the trademark, thus the more damages they may have to pay Stardock if a court determines that Stardock has clear title.

I don't know anything about US trademark law, but I think RWarehall is right, that sounds like legalese, and shouldn't be taken out of that context. It's just a term, used to simplify the understanding of the complaint, by the legal professionals.

I have no idea who is right and who is mistaken, but this is affecting both projects, which is sad.

I don't even know how someone managed to argue even in this thread O_o'

Hah no.

Hmm, perhaps it is legalese. I think the more important thing is the technicalities of the 1988 agreement. It clearly contains clauses which cause rights to revert to Fred and Paul, so my guess is that the case(s) will hinge on whether those bits came into effect or not.

Certainly, the events of 2011 seem to suggest they have a case, where the old games were released on GOG by Atari but then 'republished' here by Fred and Paul after Atari agreed they didn't have the (sole?) rights. I imagine correspondence from that will be important evidence.

The fame, reputation and good will of Impulse was transferred fair and square to Gamestop. That work out well for Gamestop didn't it? [/sarcasm]

There is nothing "bizarre" about that phrase at all. It's clickbait media taking you for a ride.

To describe "fame, reputation and goodwill" to a Trademark is a common practice. To describe the entity owning the Trademark as the create is as well. The fact that some people want to use legal phrasing as a personal attack against the plaintiff is what I consider "bizarre'. Ars Technica should know much better. Shame on them for stirring up trouble over nothing. As to Fred and Paul, they really need to get a lawyer. That post shows their own legal ignorance and that blog post will probably work against them in court.

By all accounts they've been lawyered up since at least December, Brad Wardell mentions being directed to their lawyer on his own forum post.

Which is sad, because the first thing a good lawyer would likely do in a case like this is not to blog about it. Because being shown to sway public opinion in this way just demonstrates more how they have been damaging the "fame, reputation and goodwill" of the Trademark. That blog post and going to the media would be rather ill-advised since it's likely to lead to greater damages against them if they lose.

Well their case seems to be that it's their trademark to damage. Presumably their lawyer considers their case fairly strong.

No good lawyer would have their clients take that risk. They are clearly acting without their lawyers advice when it comes to blog posting. Doesn't matter how strong a case the lawyer might think they have. If they lose, they might be able to come back and sue their lawyer for incompetence.

There is a reason people are told to say "no comment" and leave all responses to the lawyer. Even Brad probably made the mistake of saying too much here, and that post stands a chance of working against him too.

Yeah, but is anyone really disputing who owns the trademark? It's more like George Lucas sold the Star Wars trademark to Disney (well, to a company that was later bought by Disney) but kept the actual movies to himself. So Disney would be saying they own Star Wars, which is technically true, but Lucas still has the Jedi, lightsabers, and Millennium Falcon and is making a new movie with those and he's just not calling it Star Wars anymore.

No, no, no. StarCon was created by Toys for Bob, and was published by Accolade. Of course you can't have a game without a publisher, but TfB was the developer. By all rights they should get the credit for the game.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Control
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Control_II

Except by Toys for Bob's account, they didn't sell all the trademarks, just Star Control 3. If their accounting is correct, (I'm not taking sides here yet) it would be like Disney buying the rights to Return of the Jedi then suing Lucas Arts for continuing to distribute the other movies.

Obviously, that scenario depends on StarDock's ability to prove whether they own all the Trademarks or not.