#11
|
||||
|
||||
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!
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
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:
Quote:
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. Last edited by II./JG1_Klaiber; 10-15-2009 at 08:48 PM. Reason: spelling |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
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
__________________
GigaByteBoard...64bit...FX 4300 3.8, G. Skill sniper 1866 32GB, EVGA GTX 660 ti 3gb, Raptor 64mb cache, Planar 120Hz 2ms, CH controls, Tir5 |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
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. Last edited by proton45; 10-16-2009 at 12:30 AM. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by nearmiss; 10-16-2009 at 02:29 AM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
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.
__________________
Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943. ~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov Last edited by ElAurens; 10-16-2009 at 04:25 AM. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
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. |
|
|