Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=10544)

Quote:

Originally Posted by nearmiss (Post 111161)

If you did know would it make a difference?

I careless about stuff like that. There are thousands of Grumman virtual aircraft all over the web. Methinks that was all just a smoke and mirrors thing to mess with the troops.

Anyone who loves the game would want to know all there is to know about it's history and development. Personally I'd like to see a tell-all autobiography one day. Yes Oleg, I mean you!

Here’s a International Game Developer's Association forum link which shows a 2004 discussion of this very issue:

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthrea...threadid=13370

Some interesting highlights:

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidEllzey

It seems that Northrop/Grumman company demanded an extremely high fee for the use of the aircraft and ships that their current family of acquired companies (Northrop, Grumman, Republic, Vought, etc...) manufactured during WWII. Given the low budgets that flight-sims work with, especially our Russian colleagues, the developers were unable to pay the fees. Northrop then went to the publisher who to the best of my knowledge paid the fees but deducted all or some of it from the developer's payments...

...I am attempting to locate the Northrop attorney for clarification but that may take a little while, I will update as I find out more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidEllzey

Here is an update:

I spoke to Mr. Patrick Joyce (310.201.3384) at Northrop this morning. He is the person who handles such things for their company; it might even be his only responsibility. Anyway, he was the person who requested TM fees from the Russian developer and eventually received said fees from the French publisher. He is not an attorney but here is what I could gather from our little chat.

Northrop/Grumman is requiring trademark licensing fees for the use of any aircraft, ship, boat, vehicle or weapon system that they our any of their acquired companies have ever produced. They maintain that all these things are covered by either registered trademark or “common law” trademark, sometimes both.

Upon further inquiry, he stated that all video/computer games, motion pictures, television, and toys are subject to these fees. When asked about literature, he said no.

I brought up the fact that the US government purchased these items and that they would seemingly be public domain. He said no, that both Northrop/Grumman and the US government own rights to the items.

To facilitate a good ongoing investigation, I’ve kept the discussion pretty light and open to continuation. Without alienating this guy (as least not yet) what are the questions I need to ask him?

And here is an HMA (Hobby Manufacturers Association) June 2007 memo which also discusses the issue as well, this time from a hobbyist standpoint:

http://www.hmahobby.org/pdfs/HMA-Mem...-Memo-6.07.pdf

Companies like Revell-Monogram say that military products that have been paid for by the US government through taxpayer money are in public domain and not private property. Meanwhile, the defense industry completely disagrees.

What a crock...

The U.S.Government paid for the complete development, engineering and the building of those aircraft. In other words, the U.S. Taxpayer paid for it.

Looks to me like they have way found a way to skin foreigners.

I think that various company's developed aircraft on their own dime. Then had to compete against, to win the goverment contract through performance results...having won the contract, then tax payer money would enter the picture for pre orders

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 111432)

I believe the unit price for each aerocraft had the cost of development, tooling & production worked into the final price per aeroplane... :)

They didn't loose money...they made money.

If the game included an aeroplane that looked very much like a "Wildcat", but was not called a "Wildcat" I believe that Grumman would have a very hard time collecting money...but because the box said "Fly the Wildcat", Grumman can make a pretty strong case that the game manufacturer is making money off of their property.

Two legal questions about this.

1. What if Oleg and crew didn't use Grumman but either wildcat, hellcat ect or F4F-3 is there still a case for Grumman?

2. What if the a/c in question were added into the sim either by a free patch by Oleg or as we have now by mods, what then? There is no money involved there.

Flyingbullseye

Quote:

Originally Posted by SlipBall (Post 111432)

Nope not the case... during the war the government influenced everything with money, money, money. Winning the war was priority one. The DOD threw money at anything to aid in the war effort.

The world was at war, Britain, Australia, Russia, etc they all needed equipment as well.

The government even paid for Howard Hughes Spruce Goose, start to finish.

I double doubt those American aircraft companies could do anything with an American based game developer. The lawyers would love those lawsuits.

Actually, the whole "who owns the rights" gets really complicated with defense contracts. These days most governments are including explicit clauses into their contracts that when they buy it, they buy everything, including future design rights, including the rights to hand the designs to 3rd parties for additional design and development.

I'm told that the paperwork entailed in a single mid-sized DOD contract will fill a C-130 Hercules loaded on standard pallets. As in, they will literally fly a C-130 out there, and you will completely fill it with contract paperwork, shrink wrapped and stacked onto standard pallets in the appropriate Legal Paper loading configuration.

Two aircraft come to mind.

The Douglas A20 Havoc (Boston) and the Bristol Blenheim. Both were private venture developments that were not done to specific government contract requirements, but were purchased by their respective governments because their demonstrated performance was so good.

The P51 also sort of fits this description, because has you may recall, it was not built to a government specification. It was a private venture design offered to the RAF in lieu of the P40, that the RAF was actually looking to purchase.

I really think that the "Grumman issue" was about using names that they own copyright to...names like "Grumman", "Wildcat" & "Hellcat".

I could be wrong...but i think I'm right. ;)