Question Regarding Grumman Lawsuit

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

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.

Not the case...It worked like this: the goverment announces what it is looking for, different company's then develope an aircraft to meet what they hope will win the contract. The aircraft would then be tested, and then the goverment would choose the winner, and thus the valuable contract...So in the case here about Grumman, they are in the right since it is their aircraft design, and property. Now Boeing with its B-17 is not so picky as Grumman is, so it depends on each company as to how they share their property. The goverment did not own the patent, they only bought a bunch of the aircraft.



"The prototype B-17, designated Model 299, was designed by a team of engineers led by E. Gifford Emery and Edward Curtis Wells and built at Boeing's own expense."

There may have been cases of goverment money used for developement, but I'm not aware of them

[billswagger]

Whats happening in this case actually shows the loop holes in the laws itself.

I think any judge or law writer should examine the intent of such rules and why they exist.
Trademarks, and patents exist to protect ideas and IP.
I think these rules may be getting stretched too far to include design specs outside of the industry that they compete in.

For example, no one is taking a Grumman design, building it and trying to sell it as their own.

There is no physical aircraft that competes against Grumman.

No one is selling completely different airplanes and calling them Grumman.

There is probably also a way to link the use of such a design as public domain because it was purchased and used by the US government in a HISTORICAL war.

An even stronger argument is the educational value of such content.

Are we to rename historical figures or monuments at the cost of not being able to pay their fees?
"Sorry, its not the Eiffel Tower in game, its called 'The Big Antenna'."
A kid then visits Paris, and only knows to call it 'The Big Antenna'.

Gaming developers as well as model and toy manufacturers need to establish that their content has an educational as well as journalistic value to the public and that changing the names or designs would be misleading and a change in historical facts. This might raise issues that surround freedom of the press, and related statues.

As video game developers, we are only trying to depict the truth.


something like that....


Bill

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

Honestly, the whole trend is based off of a very loose interpretation of copyright laws. But the defense companies really don't have to worry about this because most small companies aren't going to be able to afford the lawyers to adequately fight them in the US court system. So it really is a case of might makes right.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007...ntagon-vs-hob/

…The contractors have sought 2 to 8 percent of the costs of each unit from toy manufacturers, according to the association. This expense, which amounts to an increased cost of $6,000 for 15,000 units, is passed on to the consumer, driving down demand and putting small hobby shops in jeopardy, the association argues on its Web site.

The sad thing is that it had actually been my understanding that from the 1960s through the late 1980s, most defense manufacturers actually encouraged the model and hobby industry to use their designs. It was good PR, as it gave them free advertising and it allowed newly merged mega-companies (like Northrop-Grumman for example) to get some mileage on obsolete aircraft created by their antecedents (Northrop, Grumman, Ryan, Fairchild, Republic, etc).

But as the 2007 memo I posted from the HMA says, the shift to aggressive trademark protection happened when U.S. car manufacturers realized they could make an extra buck by pinching the little guy. And Defense contractors soon smelled blood and followed suit.

I actually wouldn’t be surprise if the explosion of computer simming in the 1990s also caught the manufacturers' attention.

Either way, here’s another really good article regarding this issue:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htm.../20050131.aspx

January 31, 2005

For over half a century, kits have been sold that enable military history buffs to assemble scale models of military ships, aircraft and vehicles. But that era is coming to an end, as the manufacturers of the original equipment, especially aircraft, are demanding high royalties (up to $40 per kit) from the kit makers. Since most of these kits sell in small quantities (10-20,000) and are priced at $15-30 (for plastic kits, wooden ones are about twice as much), tacking on the royalty just prices the kit out of the market. Popular land vehicles, which would sell a lot of kits, are missing as well. The new U.S. Army Stryker armored vehicles are not available because of royalty requirements. Even World War II aircraft kits are being hit with royalty demands.

These royalty demands grew out of the idea that corporations should maximize intellectual property income. Models of a companys products are considered the intellectual property of the owner of a vehicle design. Some intellectual property lawyers have pointed out that many of these demands are on weak legal ground, but the kit manufacturers are often small companies that cannot afford years of litigation to settle this contention. In the past, the model kits were considered free advertising, and good public relations, by the defense firms. The kit manufacturers comprise a small industry, and the aircraft manufacturers will probably not even notice if they put many of the model vendors out of business. Some model companies will survive by only selling models of older (like World War I), or otherwise no royalty items (Nazi German aircraft) and ships. But the aircraft were always the bulk of sales, and their loss will cripple many of the kit makers. Some of the vehicle manufacturers have noted the problem, and have lowered their demands to a more reasonable level (a few percent of the wholesale price of the kits).

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by billswagger

Whats happening in this case actually shows the loop holes in the laws itself.


An even stronger argument is the educational value of such content.

Are we to rename historical figures or monuments at the cost of not being able to pay their fees?
"Sorry, its not the Eiffel Tower in game, its called 'The Big Antenna'."
A kid then visits Paris, and only knows to call it 'The Big Antenna'.



Bill

Funny enough, actually the Tour Eiffel image (not the name) is copyrighted, but only when lit at night... No copyright for unlit daily pictures ... The fee is intended to contribute to the huge costs of lighting that Big Antenna, not to make easy money on something tha has been largely paid off long time ago, as in the case of a warplane ...

Regards,
insuber

[Feathered_IV]

Here's something that I'd really like to know.

When Northrop Grumman constructed that full-sized copy of the Horten flying wing for research and promotional purposes, did they pay a cent in royalties to the Horten family?

If NG did not observe their own legal obligations in this exact same area, wouldn't this give MG or Ubisoft an opportunity to get their money back?

[ElAurens]

I doubt that any Nazi era design is covered by any law that would be applicable now.

Not that I am backing N-G's deplorable conduct in any way, but the Nazi flying wing has nothing to do with this.

To the victor go the spoils.

[SlipBall]

Well our founding fathers decided to put this protection in the Constitution, and I think that it was a good idea...The problem is that our congress has a long history of going back into the law, and changing it, that is to say extending the time frame of the law. That to me is a bad idea


"A growing number of academics and legal experts are saying that the copyright renewals are a violation of the Constitution. "The copyright extension bill is a rotten idea for the American people," said Dennis Karjala, a professor of intellectual property law at Arizona State University and a leader of the opposition to extension."

[II./JG1_Klaiber]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Well our founding fathers decided to put this protection in the Constitution, and I think that it was a good idea...The problem is that our congress has a long history of going back into the law, and changing it, that is to say extending the time frame of the law. That to me is a bad idea


"A growing number of academics and legal experts are saying that the copyright renewals are a violation of the Constitution. "The copyright extension bill is a rotten idea for the American people," said Dennis Karjala, a professor of intellectual property law at Arizona State University and a leader of the opposition to extension."

I agree. Copyrights are meant to protect intellectual property and are therefore good so long as this protection is not abused.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/200...23105835.shtml

But, really, the bigger point was made by [Prof James] Boyle, via Twitter, where he noted that we are "the first generation to deny our own culture to ourselves and to drive the point home, he notes that no work created during your lifetime will, without conscious action by its creator, become available for you to build upon. For people who don't recognize the importance of the public domain and the nature of creativity, perhaps this seems like no big deal. But if you look back through history, you realize what an incredibly big deal it is -- and how immensely stifling this is on our culture. And then you realize this is all done under a law whose sole purpose is to "promote the progress" and you begin to wonder how this happened. It goes back beyond Mickey Mouse, certainly, but Mickey and Disney have been huge drivers of this attempt to stifle new culture, all in the name of limiting competition for itself. What a shame.