Taslios

The point that seems to be escaping Elestan is that the Names of the aliens are not protected by the Copyright. The Trademark also does not grant SD any right to use the LORE or the story from SC1-2 The Trademark does let them use the NAMES as those are directly associated with what was marketed IE the NAME Star Control which has a Trademark. Conversly because the NAMES of the races are tied to the Star Control Trademark, you cannot use them

Timmaigh, The trademark dictates who can produce and sell an item. Look at the Abrams Trek and Star Trek Discovery vrs TOS, STNG, DS9, and the earlier movies.... Both CBS and Paramount who were once one company and are now seperate companies control some portion of the Trademark, so both can sell something known as Star Trek. However they don't share the same IP when it comes to the copyright. So the uniforms, some of the stories

[quote who="Elestan" reply="360" id="3714023"] Quoting Taslios, reply 356 But yes... with the Fox trademarks for Xmen, Fantastic 4 and Deadpool... Marvel sold them the rights to the trademark back in the days when Marvel was nearly going bankrupt. It's an interesting example, but it's hard to say if

[quote who="bleybourne" reply="355" id="3714017"] Quoting Taslios, reply 352 So question for Stardock... Will we see a May update similar to the April one? I'm not a founder (didn't have the free floating cash when the founders stuff was offered or I would be...) but I'm

[quote who="tingkagol" reply="353" id="3714015"] Quoting Taslios, reply 351 Paul and Fred can claim the Races and lore and story they have developed... but they cannot use it without the associated Trademarks... The best and clearest case on that is if you look at Stan Lee and his career for both Ma

So question for Stardock... Will we see a May update similar to the April one? I'm not a founder (didn't have the free floating cash when the founders stuff was offered or I would be...) but I'm very hungry for updates on the development and teasers ;)

not sure how to fix it so my post doesn't show up in the quote box, but to make it more clear: My post was probably more just verbal speculation... Anything Brad could post, he already has. I suspect he has some very keen thoughts on this that he cannot share during the on going litigation. Given what both sides have posted I think Brad really tried to work things out with them. I posed earlier that it would not shock me if Brad tried to of

[quote who="Starkillr" reply="349" id="3714006"] Brad tried to work with them, P&F didn't think they needed to due to what they thought they owned and also wanted to do it their own way. So while your suggestion makes a lot of sense, it's not the path P&F desired to take. I don't know if there was pride or ego involved on their end or if it was just wanting to have the creative freedom to do what they wanted without anyone dictating or telling them what to do. I'm actually not sure if

Elestan, I for one am glad you continue to post. I'm glad you have such passion. I'm glad you care. I think your loyalties are highly misplaced, but you are loyal. So here's the real question for you or the other folks who seem he** bent to cast Stardock as being the evil corp and Paul and Fred as simple victims. What have Paul and Fred done for you lately? what have their actions shown that has you so loyal?<

Yeah... they either build basic carriers, or don't have enough logistics, or don't put them in large enough fleets, or only put one in a fleet... I think the AI would improve significantly if they just weighted the research a bit better. Like... hey AI. you chose the + to Logistics path... so you get the most out of it if you STAY WITH IT.... don't go willy nilly all over the place on subsequent specializations... The game is su

I really wish the AI would build more carriers.... it's kinda fun when I "gift" someone a ton of excess carriers and then declare war on them. If you are building carriers and have decent logistics there is very very little reason to build anything with defenses as Nilfiry is correct the fighters will kill everything. Full disclosure, I find Carriers OP for this reason and thus rarely build them. I find the game

Defenses are very very good.. on Assault ships and Escorts. I tend to have one or two "soak" ships with nothing but defense and one single weapon.... Then a unholy ton of capitol ships with nothing but weapons. Generally the capitol ships kill the enemy before my defensive ships run out of defense. as defenses regen fully between battles, I replace far fewer ships with this strat.

Rather than a DLC... a PME (Physical Mailed Enhancement) I would totally buy a cloth map and a lore book should Stardock sell such. not sure if enough people would buy those these days however...

What is driving your debt? are you buying too much energy? Needing water? etc

I've gotten it. once the slot opens up you need to click on it and assign someone.

I've never played any of the Star Control Games... I was 12 when SCII came out... and by the time I was into computer games MOOII, Diablo, MechWarrior II were the games I found... and then in college SMAC and Gal Civ 1 and 2 etc... So it was before my time. However from reading these forums and the UQM forums... 1. Replayability (to have people this ridiculously passionate about a game nearly 30 years

[quote who="AdamMG" reply="2" id="3712626"] regarding a galactic bank - I like the idea. GC2 (I think) had loans you could take out to pay off expensive projects, pay off in full, or pay more over N number of turns against income, with 3-4 different brokers? I could see that working out. Yes it did! I had forgotten this. that would be a great addition to GCIII regarding negative food - there sh

Sorry Hawkeye, You made some really good points. I've just been crazy busy lately and have not really been following GCIII as much. I agree with almost all of what you say. these little details would add a ton of depth.

[quote who="admiralWillyWilber" reply="11" id="3712573"] Continuas projects has added a lot of extra micro causing me to cycle through all my planets every turn when I research a new tech just so I can build my new improvement because it doesn't end automatically, or waste a lot of infrastracture I could of built. As an option that I would not use is OK. I am also relieved when they removed it. I can only hope that they are seriously making it an option. [/quote] The continu

[quote who="Elestan" reply="631" id="3712109"] Quoting Jafo, reply 627 Quoting Elestan, reply 626 Brad could retire, or change his m

[quote who="Elestan" reply="621" id="3712061"] Quoting Jafo, reply 617 When did "Stardock response to Paul and Fred [Update]" become an open invitation to investigate the entire world of case Law, and, as stated more than once, cloud the issue? Okay,

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="572" id="3711852"] I would imagine and no sane company would target their own fan communities. [/quote] Nintendo, Sony, EA, and CBS have all made a pretty big hobby out of it. >.>

[quote who="Elestan" reply="569" id="3711846"] Didn't think they had any trademark claim on the project's use of any unregistered marks from SC2, or Didn't think that the project's use of those marks mattered, or Just didn't care about an old franchise that hadn't sold any game

[quote who="Elestan" reply="562" id="3711838"] Right...that was my point. The UQM project can't engage in commerce, because (aside from any trademark issues) its license terms prohibit it. [/quote] Which is why Atari, and Stardock did not and do not care legally about the UQM Project, but do care quite a bit about what Paul and Fred have said/done. which I think... is what Brad was trying to say... <di

[quote who="SirPrimalform" reply="559" id="3711834"] Quoting Taslios, reply 554 to my not legal expert... yes. However as UQM project was not trying to sell anything or make a profit on something it is actually probably protected by the same laws that protect fan fiction and parody. <br