PDA

View Full Version : Flyable TBF Anenger vs. Northop



matkal80
01-08-2005, 09:12 AM
I keep listening to people that says we wont get flyable avenger because of Northop. And i have 3 questions:

1) From what I know this whole case with northop was because of using company name grumman in the box. So releasing a plane without using a name of a company should not be a violation of Northop rights.

2) Patch (in which Avenger can come) is free so it doesnt violate Northop rights again.

3) Avenger is already in the game, so giving it a cockpit shouldnt be a violation as well (specialy if UBI had to pay for the planes it used already in the game - if that is true) Giving its a cocpit is no difrence than for example changing parameters of flight of F6F Hellcat in the latest patch.

So in my opinion there should be no problem with releasing this plane. And i hope we wont get to the situtaion when they decide to give us this and other planes in payable addon claming that some money will be used to pay Northop because i see no reason to pay them in this situation

matkal80
01-08-2005, 09:12 AM
I keep listening to people that says we wont get flyable avenger because of Northop. And i have 3 questions:

1) From what I know this whole case with northop was because of using company name grumman in the box. So releasing a plane without using a name of a company should not be a violation of Northop rights.

2) Patch (in which Avenger can come) is free so it doesnt violate Northop rights again.

3) Avenger is already in the game, so giving it a cockpit shouldnt be a violation as well (specialy if UBI had to pay for the planes it used already in the game - if that is true) Giving its a cocpit is no difrence than for example changing parameters of flight of F6F Hellcat in the latest patch.

So in my opinion there should be no problem with releasing this plane. And i hope we wont get to the situtaion when they decide to give us this and other planes in payable addon claming that some money will be used to pay Northop because i see no reason to pay them in this situation

fordfan25
01-08-2005, 10:36 AM
heck ill pay it. im giveing the goverment and it little friends like Northop a ton of my money any way lol. i mean what the hay right im filthy rich. i make a woping 100 bucks a mounth. i supose i might not be able to afford that new 6 pack of pepsi iv had my eye on but at leaset those poor guys at northop might be able to afford to eat for a few more days. im sure thay need it more than me. maby thay can afford to make a new fighter and it NOT take them 15 years to do it.

MoritzJGOne
01-08-2005, 11:50 PM
I spent a fer hours in the US Patent & Trademark website using their very good search engine to see what they have tried to nail down.

They have not tried to trademark TBF or TBM or Avenger. Grumman is the only trademark cencerned on this one.

Mjollnir111675
01-09-2005, 12:02 AM
Whatta bout ALL the ships that were built @ the BROOKLYN NAVY YARD??

I
Bring
Thread
Lock
!
!
!

MoritzJGOne
01-09-2005, 12:09 AM
The only vessel named that had a trade mark registration is "Enterprise". However, it does not specify CV-5 or CVN-65.

All other Newport News vessels are not trademarked. If what we hear on the boards is valid, then it is safe to say that when the weasel from Northrop made his charges, he exaggerated a bit.

Mjollnir111675
01-09-2005, 12:48 AM
Thats me point!
It is all moot!!
No-one really wanted to represent the U.S. at all.
This was just a profit boost fer BlOB but it looks to be back firin'!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
It was apparent from when A.E.P. came out.
everyone who wanted the 'Stang unbridled or tha 'Bolt with more boom they called them what...?
But I see those JapOnKnees probs got resolved pretty quick!And so did the numerous versions of any So-Vee plane.
And the ridiculous Russo planes we have!!
What about a TB-3 4M-17!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Yet ya hear "this isn't a torp plane sim"!
No but it WAS a SURFACE-ATTACK SIM which is what a torp plane is!! NO DIFFERENT BUT THE FISH IS A FISH AND IT HAS PROPULSION!! Which makes it more involved. And if they were'nt prepared to embark on this journey they should've never left port PERIOD!
Just call it the Revenger and be done with it!
Chance-Vought=Vance-Chought
Northrop-grumman= Gothrop-Rumman
Point is if they HAD done their homework this could've been avoided. Whoever I dont care 1-C or Ubi OR BOTH!!
Who cares bout a box? Far as I can see since I was young I can remember all of my new toys with the fine print on the box:"Weapons do NOT shoot". and/or the infamous:
"COLOR AND PRODUCT MAY VARY FROM WHAT IS PICTURED ON BOX"

Now that IS funny and aptly applied in this case!!
"I know,lets lure them in vith a FAT SCREENSHOT OF AN AVENGER LAYIN A FAT ONE TO A JapOnKnee's Big girl!"
"Shur vee cando that Bosk?"
"Vhy Not"
"Cuzzky ve vere gettinch the rightses fer daske planeskees."
"Ah..they'll never know that this is just a Rupel boost fer BlOB"
"wont that be deception?"
"You're fired!"
"Good I wasas good as gone as soon as this **** rained down!!"
Now we all know where HE went!!!
"But dont worry all planes that are already in-game wont be affected!"
How bout Oleg 'N' Crew vs. a college with basic GLOBAL BUSINESS PRACTICES 101 or GLOBAL COPY?TRADEMARK LAWS 101??
Need a referral? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Latico
01-09-2005, 08:54 AM
Company names and logos come under "Trademark" jurisdiction.

Product designs come under Copyright jurisdiction.

And since neither Ubisoft, 1cMoaddox, or Oleg have disclosed any details concerning the dispute between them and Northrop-Grumman, how do you KNOW what beef was?

What ever you have read on this forum, including what I have posted, has been speculation.

DuxCorvan
01-09-2005, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MoritzJGOne:
All other Newport News vessels are not trademarked. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, Yorktown is finished, but the modeler has announced it can't be released because of this.

Chuck_Older
01-09-2005, 09:02 AM
these threads don't help 1C:maddox Games at all

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v441/Chuck_Older/catbeg.jpg

IV_JG51_Razor
01-09-2005, 09:07 AM
"3) Avenger is already in the game, so giving it a cockpit shouldnt be a violation as well (specialy if UBI had to pay for the planes it used already in the game - if that is true) Giving its a cocpit is no difrence than for example changing parameters of flight of F6F Hellcat in the latest patch."

Matcal80 brings up a good point. Since the TBF is already in the game, and assuming Northrup/Gruman have been satisfied by whatever ammount of cash that Ubi Soft gave them, what's the problem with giving it a cockpit? I can understand not adding any additional types like, say, the F7F Tigercat, but the Turkey is already in the game. What difference does it make whether or not it has a cockpit? It's been "paid" for already.

Latico
01-09-2005, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> these threads don't help 1C:maddox Games at all
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck is absolutely right.

IV_JG51_Razor
01-09-2005, 10:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> these threads don't help 1C:maddox Games at all
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck is absolutely right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when was the charter of this forum changed to be one whose sole purpose is to "help" 1C:Maddox Games? This is a forum for discussion of related topics concerning Pacific Fighters as far as I know, and I really don't see a problem with this thread. Matcal80 has posted some good points which aren't inflamatory, or abusive. What's with the thought police attitude? If you don't care to take part in this thread, don't. It's that simple.

Zarathael
01-09-2005, 11:53 AM
To a great extent these topics don't help 1c or anybody else, so long as the entire point is to bash everybody involved. This is, however a topic that warrants a great amount of DISCUSSION because of what it implies for the future of sims, models and many other forms of media. This situation is very important, and needs to be dealt with swiftly and firmly, otherwise, we are going to be getting bled dry by it for many years to come. The ISSUE itself goes very far beyond PF.

There is also the point that we DON'T know the entire story about what is going on, or even half. I am inclined to believe, (a bit optimistically maybe), that things aren't quite as bad as we seem to think, and that a lot of us are jumping to conclusions about what's going on. I'm holding on to the hope that all the delays we've gotten with regards to the ne AC patch in general are due to the fact that somebody is actually working on this problem, otherwise, we would have already gotten it, or what was left of it. If we really weren't going to get any new us planes or ships, if the avenger wasn't gonna be flyable, yaddayaddayadda, then they would have just cut all that out of the patch, and given it to us a load of new japanese, german, and Russian AC, and said that's it.

The delay tells me somebody's working on the problem, and that's a good sign. Of course, I'm cynical enough about our legal system and I understand that absolutely NOTHING is beneath the dignity of modern commercial enterprise, to accept that we still could really get screwed. I nevertheless hold 1c not responsible for this. They stepped into a quagmire, to be sure, but well, that was ubi's responsibility.

DuxCorvan
01-09-2005, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> these threads don't help 1C:maddox Games at all
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck is absolutely right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And rather attractive, IMHO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'd say more: these threads don't matter to 1C:Maddox Games at all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Don't waste your time, boys. Do something creative. Building London Bridge with matches or something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or present me your girlfriends and look what happens. You may learn something. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/11/11_14_5.gif

Chuck_Older
01-09-2005, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:

Since when was the charter of this forum changed to be one whose sole purpose is to "help" 1C:Maddox Games? This is a forum for discussion of related topics concerning Pacific Fighters as far as I know, and I really don't see a problem with this thread. Matcal80 has posted some good points which aren't inflamatory, or abusive. What's with the thought police attitude? If you don't care to take part in this thread, don't. It's that simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Razor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I guess you think that saying that this doesn't help is a bit like telling you waht to think or do. Well, to clear that up, All I said was that it didn't help, and it doesn't. We've been asked to tone down the Oleg vs. Northrop thing.

Now you may think that this means I am trying to govern your thoughts. Well...whatever. There's a big difference between "this doesn't help" and "You shouldn't do this because" or "hey STFU", both of which are things I could have posted, right? Right.

Your thinking on teh whole forums thing is a little, well, cloudy, I think.

This is not a public forum this is private. You registered to join, and by doing so you agreed to the Terms of Service, whether you know that or not. One of those things in the TOS was that you may not just post anything you want. There are rules

Now I myself bend them all the time. But the difference is that I will never say "Hey! This is a public forum and I am free to do what I want and post what I want and if the mods or admins don't like it, they are the ones doing wrong, not me", because I know better.

Now, your post is rather knee-jerk, don't you think? "Since when is the sole purpose..."

Now hang on. Who said that this was going on? Who said you must only post what 1C:Maddox or Ubi thinks will help? I could just as easily say "Since when is the sole purpose to uselessly speculate about situations we don't have a clue about?", right? But I didn't. I said it wasn't helping, and you made your mind up about the rest.

That's just silly. Nobody said that or told you what to think or changed what the forum was about. But you know that. Come on now, there's no need for this type of confrontation

John_Stag
01-09-2005, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> these threads don't help 1C:maddox Games at all
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chuck is absolutely right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when was the charter of this forum changed to be one whose sole purpose is to "help" 1C:Maddox Games? This is a forum for discussion of related topics concerning Pacific Fighters as far as I know, and I really don't see a problem with this thread. Matcal80 has posted some good points which aren't inflamatory, or abusive. What's with the thought police attitude? If you don't care to take part in this thread, don't. It's that simple. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah but it gets boring after reading it for the 98th time.

IV_JG51_Razor
01-09-2005, 02:44 PM
OK, whatever.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Daiichidoku
01-09-2005, 03:05 PM
Its not only the names of the planes involved....so many ppl think that just spoofing the names will free everything up

Its also the LIKENESS of the planes tha tis in question, from what I have read

But EVERYTHING is specualtion, really, until we ever get official word from 1C/Ubi/Oleg...which may or may not ever happen



and Dux, I dont need to give a girlfriend I dont have to you....I already know what to do with one if I get her.....make her a part of my life, and share the most intimate times....she can sit beside me and count my expended ammo while I fly my P-47...but if I fly a 109 or 190 with built in counters, I hope she doesnt hold it against me too much

LuftKuhMist
01-09-2005, 03:52 PM
Seriously I don't understand the POINT northrop is trying to prove. How does THIS is a nuisance to them??? On the contrary it's free publicity... it's not like it's Gloster who is very badly represented in this game with the worst plane of the lot.

ElAurens
01-09-2005, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mjollnir111675:
Blah...blah...blah...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What on earth are you talking about?

I'm hoping this is just a translation problem, because your post made absolutely no sense.

MoritzJGOne
01-09-2005, 04:10 PM
From a discussion I had with an exec at a large US plastic model company, the issue is trademarks. You cannot copyright the image of a 60 year airplane, but you can trademark the name.

Latico
01-09-2005, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seriously I don't understand the POINT northrop is trying to prove. How does THIS is a nuisance to them??? On the contrary it's free publicity... it's not like it's Gloster who is very badly represented in this game with the worst plane of the lot.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NG isn't trying to make any point. They are merely excorcising their rights under the "Trademark/ Copyright" laws of the US. And concidering that it will only be flight sim enthusiast (an extremely small percentage of the world population) that see the planes/ships/whatever in the sim, I doubt that they benefit much from "advertising publicity".

It has been said repeatedly that WE don't know anything about the details of this problem between Ubi/Ic or how it's been/being settled.

I would also note that it appears that many that post on this forum have no clue about trademark/copyright laws in the US or their purposes. Not only that but many don't seem to know about price markup of a product that occures from the time a product leaves the publisher until it reaches the retailers shelf. Did you all know that merchandise that we buy in the stores (US) has been marked up anywhere from 50 to 900 percent from what the retailer paid the wholesaler/distributer? And when the wholesaler got the products, they marked up the price from what they got it from the manufacturer.

Now who's the greedy bastages?

Bull_dog_
01-09-2005, 07:30 PM
No matter what the situation is, I think the problem is that 1C may be forced to litigate. That is expensive even if you win!

I can't imagine 1C hiring corporate lawyers on a game that is at the end of its life expectancy even if it thinks it can win...unless it can do so cheeply...and lawyers and cheaply don't mix. There is such small margines in these kinds of sims, it would take an organization looking after its long term interests to actually pick a fight. As long as your in the business of making PC games, it really doesn't matter what kind of games they are. Now if Oleg has it in his mind that he wants to stay in WWII and include American planes and ships then he might be willing to take the chance.

I'd be suprised if this is ever settled with regard to FB/AEP/PF...maybe in the future with BoB, but not in a game that represents mostly cost at this point.

One thing is certain about courts and lawyers...they are predictably unpredictable and uncertain.

Latico
01-09-2005, 09:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I'd be suprised if this is ever settled with regard to FB/AEP/PF...maybe in the future with BoB, but not in a game that represents mostly cost at this point.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For all we know, the cituation may have been settled weeks ago, amiably at that. We might be just waiting on development problems to be resolved now.

m.manson2004
01-10-2005, 08:00 AM
The mistake was Grumman on the box and maybe
Mitsubishi any day now.That does'nt mean we cant have the Avenger as flyable, it wont change anything, same for the kate and Devastator.Just watch the reputation of this sim
change overnight if they do so.All the maps can then follow to complete the sim.Its a shame to leave it like a lame duck.The sad thing which i just cant get over is that there is no competition or substitute since 1994,its this which is incomplete or nothing!!!You would have thought by simple deduction and common sense that the the 2 sims from 1994 would have been improved by leeps and bounds by now with all the tech improvements and yet there is absolutely nothing to reenact what we read in our books i just dont get it!When that son of a so in so went to E3 and saw he had no competition he new he had it made and so he just relaxed and cut costs then dissapeared all together!!Just the right people the sim comunity needs to make it even smaller.
manson

JG51Beolke
01-10-2005, 08:30 AM
If the planes are already in the game, then the damage is already done!!! What difference does it make now, if we get the pit for the Avenger? It's a Pacific War Sim. Although it's called Pacific Fighters, we have the SBD.

John_Stag
01-10-2005, 08:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Razor:
OK, whatever.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. maybe the first poster on this subject could sue Matcal80 for plagiarism?

Or any of the others which have merly covered the old points, again, and again, and again.

From previous experience, it has been shown that 1c has been more than willing to offer unparallelled support for its titles.

Does anyone doubt that they would do so again, without Very Good Reason?

On this forum, daily there are suggestions about what 1c and/or UBI should do to resolve the situation. Two questions;

1. How many of the posters are certain that they are in full posession of all the facts?

2. How many of these posters are lawyers familiar with US Corporate law?

Me, I'm saying nowt. Don't know anything about what's going on, like the game, want flyable torpedo bombers, but am mature enough to know that if they haven't been implemented by now, THERE'S A BLOODY GOOD REASON, IF WE KNOW IT OR NOT!

Thank you for your attention.

LuftKuhMist
01-10-2005, 04:20 PM
Well, Northrop has the rights to do it... Then again every plane company still existing has the same rights... It's a little like the issue Grand Turismo has with damaging cars.

The thing is it's not because they CAN do it that it's right. We heard nothing from any company since the beggining of those games from Fokker to Mitsubishi. Why suddently?

Anyway yes it's empty talk, because I barely know what happens... but it's intriguing.

John_Stag
01-10-2005, 04:49 PM
Hard facts would be intriguing.

Repeat performances of "Why aren't there any torpedo planes." or "I think 1c should do this," are just re-hashiong old groun, so If you got something to say, why not use an existing thread?

Jeez, this subject has seen more repeats than a week watching the BBC!

heywooood
01-10-2005, 06:28 PM
For all we know, the cituation may have been settled weeks ago, amiably at that. We might be just waiting on development problems to be resolved now. - Latico

This is what I'm thinking too...it would be nice to get a patch update soon.
Exactly what will be in it?...(for the rest of us, aside from Russia only patches)

m.manson2004
01-10-2005, 09:05 PM
By keeping dead quiet they hope to sell as many copies as possible in the face of an unanounced fiasco,thats ll there is to it.In very simple English,scrape as much as possible from the bottom of the pot then just dump it and call it a day.You see a lot of this in Africa.
manson