PDA

View Full Version : Attention , all speculations regarding PF and Northrop will be posted in this thread



Targ
12-19-2004, 12:29 AM
All others will be deleted. Nothing personal just cleaning things up and keeping the old PF forum neat and tidy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Thank you in advance. Some of you will need to repost and I do apologize for that.

Eagle_361st
12-19-2004, 12:31 AM
Does that include my leg humped thread? I can leave out the joke for those who are way too sensitive.

Targ
12-19-2004, 12:33 AM
Sure thing, just make sure the hound is on a leash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Eagle_361st
12-19-2004, 12:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Targ:
Sure thing, just make sure the hound is on a leash http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I would hate to make any other members of the community cry tonight.

RedChip
12-19-2004, 12:35 AM
Look here (from SimHQ posted by Li'lJugs):

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370

The first post was made in November 30, more than 15 days before we know what was happening.

Some interesting info from the link:

"It is possible that the "trademark" is not the basis that Northrop is using for the fee since I have to interpret the developers emails from his peculiar form of English€¦ more appropriately Russlish." (November 30)

Oleg?

"This developer who has produced several successful games (relative to their niche) has a very grim outlook for his future projects. To quote him:

'If the business will go by this way in future we all will need to close it... Because others also wiol ask for every gun, takn, bulled modelled in a sim for payment... The business around historical game developments will stops. Its my opinion.'" (December 2)

Wow!

Eagle_361st
12-19-2004, 12:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedChip:
Look here (from SimHQ posted by Li'lJugs):

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370

The first post was made in November 30, more than 15 days before we know what was happening.

Some interesting info from the link:

"It is possible that the "trademark" is not the basis that Northrop is using for the fee since _I have to interpret the developers emails from his peculiar form of English€¦ more appropriately Russlish._" (November 30)

Oleg?

"This developer who has produced several successful games (relative to their niche) _has a very grim outlook for his future projects_. To quote him:

_'If the business will go by this way in future we all will need to close it... Because others also wiol ask for every gun, takn, bulled modelled in a sim for payment... The business around historical game developments will stops. Its my opinion.'_" (December 2)

Wow! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an excellent post. I can certainly see why they stopped all work on Northrop items. I do hope they get this all worked out one way or another. And that the solution is not a detriment to the flight sim community. Maybe someday there is hope that the F4U-4 and the P-47N along with the P-61 and others can be added. But who knows.

Oilburner_TAW
12-19-2004, 01:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RedChip:
Look here (from SimHQ posted by Li'lJugs):

http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370

......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
READ THAT THREAD NOW!!! The guy's name and phone number from Northrop are in there...

I'm going to find the contact info for George Bush SR. and send his people an e-mail. He has immense power and I would think would be sympathetic to my cause. I have sent emails to my rep before complaining about the IRS trying to screw me and it helped immensely (all of the politicians have armies of workers/volunteers who handle stuff like this).

Latico
12-19-2004, 01:15 AM
Well, I find it rather od that for all these years combat flight sims have been featuring these aircraft and no body said anything. Then all of a sudden.........WHAM!

gombal40
12-19-2004, 01:34 AM
alll this makes u wonder how the lomac people sorted thing out. Moddeling operational planes and all.

Or is that the reason they give it away?

tsisqua
12-19-2004, 01:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Latico:
Well, I find it rather od that for all these years combat flight sims have been featuring these aircraft and no body said anything. Then all of a sudden.........WHAM! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that they are trying to recover funds that were lost in a 111 million dollar lawsuit (just my own conjecture), by following the advice of some corporate know-it-all. Our brave pilots fought and died in those machines. The company that made them has forgotten.


Tsisqua

clint-ruin
12-19-2004, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Yeah I would hate to make any other members of the community cry tonight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seriously don't understand what was wrong with the topic you posted, do you, little boy?

There are many reasons why these negotiations are kept private and confidential between 1c, Ubi, and whoever else is involved. One such reason is that if the negotiations are conducted by five year olds over the internet, eventually one of them might get the idea that it's funny to suggest framing Northrops staff for child pornography, and to start hitting them below the belt by extralegal means.

Should I use a graph to illustrate to you what's wrong with what you did?

Here's how funny you thought that was:

================================================== =========

Here's how funny I thought that was:

==

Here's how funny Northrops legal team are likely to think that was:

=

You're not making anyone cry, you're just providing ammo to the people negotiating against 1c and ubi for money. You want candy for it or something?

Thanks to Targ and CrazyIvan for trying to focus the forums crazy into a coherant crazy laser.

Copperhead310th
12-19-2004, 02:50 AM
Here's the work around right here:

"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."

Simply Go to the US Gov. and request Thier permission. and say F*ck you Northop.
But really it's much too late. the damage is already done. Oleg lost a boatload of cash in this deal. and as always UBI screwed us all once again. i HATE UBI Suck. What cowads! lol rather than fight it out and take an obvious win in court on Olegs behalve they took the wussie way out and ponied up the cash just like the kid in on the play ground giving up his luch money to the school yard bully. how typically French.

Copperhead310th
12-19-2004, 02:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Yeah I would hate to make any other members of the community cry tonight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seriously don't understand what was wrong with the topic you posted, do you, little boy?

There are many reasons why these negotiations are kept private and confidential between 1c, Ubi, and whoever else is involved. One such reason is that if the negotiations are conducted by five year olds over the internet, eventually one of them might get the idea that it's funny to suggest framing Northrops staff for child pornography, and to start hitting them below the belt by extralegal means.

Should I use a graph to illustrate to you what's wrong with what you did?

Here's how funny you thought that was:

================================================== =========

Here's how funny I thought that was:

==

Here's how funny Northrops legal team are likely to think that was:

=

You're not making anyone cry, you're just providing ammo to the people negotiating against 1c and ubi for money. You want candy for it or something?

Thanks to Targ and CrazyIvan for trying to focus the forums crazy into a coherant crazy laser. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally speaking. I would LOVE nothing more than a little payback on Northrop. and trust me ...if i can find a way to get revenge that is within the limits of US law i will.

HW3
12-19-2004, 02:56 AM
It appears Oleg and UBI are not alone in this either.From the International Game Developers Association forum link Targ has posted.<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>According to the latest email from the Russian developer, Northrop has also now made demands from Microsoft (FS2004) and others.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do you think M$ will fight this?

RocketDog
12-19-2004, 03:05 AM
I was very relieved to see this statement. 1C don't have the resources to fight this, but MS will certainly call in their lawyers to defend the FS series of games and should have the resources to do it properly. I doubt if MS would let its flight sims be shot down by Northrop without putting up an effective fight.

REgards,

RocketDog.

Jirozaemon
12-19-2004, 03:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Here's the work around right here:

"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."

Simply Go to the US Gov. and request Thier permission. and say F*ck you Northop.
But really it's much too late. the damage is already done. Oleg lost a boatload of cash in this deal. and as always UBI screwed us all once again. i HATE UBI Suck. What cowads! lol rather than fight it out and take an obvious win in court on Olegs behalve they took the wussie way out and ponied up the cash just like the kid in on the play ground giving up his luch money to the school yard bully. how typically French. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm, I don`t think it is nice to say that this kind of behavior is typically French. I don`t think you would like to see a general bashing of Americans either... So you should keep your posts fair.

My 2 cents

Jiro

DuxCorvan
12-19-2004, 03:40 AM
Just for all you to know, some ships are also 'protected' by TM (Toga & Mafia) 'protection'... I know of an important American carrier, that was missing, was finished, and will never make it... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

carguy_
12-19-2004, 03:55 AM
Looks like if those companies get what they want 1C won`t even bother to make new stuff.Even German/Japanese planes will be hurt because no more sims.

This can be the turning point for flightsims genre.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

John_Stag
12-19-2004, 04:11 AM
Not just flight sims; it sets a precedent for any game or simulation set in a historical/real world context.

Then again, maybe we'll see "Grumman Software" produce flight sims of their aircraft, but they wouldn't want to be shown in a bad light, so I guess we'ed soon find out what "porked" flight models are really like.

JG53Frankyboy
12-19-2004, 04:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
Here's the work around right here:

"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."

Simply Go to the US Gov. and request Thier permission. and say F*ck you Northop.
But really it's much too late. the damage is already done. Oleg lost a boatload of cash in this deal. and as always UBI screwed us all once again. i HATE UBI Suck. What cowads! lol rather than fight it out and take an obvious win in court on Olegs behalve they took the wussie way out and ponied up the cash just like the kid in on the play ground giving up his luch money to the school yard bully. how typically French. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

perhaps you should be happy that UBI didnt ask the US factories before ! perhaps than ther would have been never any of "your" US planes in the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . and sure than nevera PF , PTO without US stuff is senseless .

and btw, lol, first the "bad guys" are Nazis, Luftwhiners, Axislovers and now simple the french - OUTCH !

DuxCorvan
12-19-2004, 05:52 AM
I see. Everything is my fault, isn't it? (sigh!)
Why does nobody love me a little?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Regards,

Napo.

P.S.: Somebody knows a treatment for an itchy bellybutton?

http://www.netarmenie.com/photo/venise/napoleon.jpg

Eagle_361st
12-19-2004, 09:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Eagle_361st:
Yeah I would hate to make any other members of the community cry tonight. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wah,, wah, wah, sniffle, hump, hump
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahh look a leg humper. Don't blame me for your serious lack of a sense of humor. I am sorry if I offended you with a little off color joke, perhaps you should get yourself a reality check about a game. And to inform you I work in the law enforcement profession, so my little joke was nothing more than that. If you took it seriously then I am sorry for you as you are the silly little boy that got his nose bent out of shape about it. Now feck off and have a nice day.

Flydutch
12-19-2004, 09:43 AM
Gruman should pay Oleg for featuring their antiqueted Aircraft in this wounderfull Sim!
The Game features Aircraft so old that they have nothing in common to the Contemperary Products Nortrop-Gruman produce, can't they see it as A Honour to Their Wartime namesake Company and the Many Gruman veterans who enjoy A tribute like this wounderfull sim!?

If they insisted You could change the Brand Name to 'Crudeman'


(Oops, Do I Have to pay now for mentioning the Brand name?)

A.K.Davis
12-19-2004, 10:02 AM
Since this seems to be repeatedly arising here and elsewhere, I am reposting one bit from another thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by aminx:
ATT AK DAVIS

IGDA MAIL EXCHANGE

1)If the trademarks owners demands were too high right from the start why did'nt they go cfs2 style e.g f6f on box and then full name in litterature?My guess is that they never followed the correct steps from the start which is hard to believe from a western publisher like UBISOFT.
2)Why did'nt they go generic all the way and gave details only in the in box litterature or leave you to open up your books.
aminx
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1. It is conjecture that issue is only the manufacturer names on the box. In fact, the content of the thread suggests otherwise.

2. This issue seems to have arose after publication. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A.K.Davis
12-19-2004, 10:33 AM
Some clarifications:

1. The F4F3-S (floatplane Wildcat) is the completed aircraft that will not be included. The modeller was paid, but we will never see it released in the U.S.

2. This issue originally arose 2 days before the planned release of Pacific Fighters and was the real cause for its delay.

3. Completed ship models built in shipyards now owned by Northrop-Grumman will also no longer be included in the patch/add-on (i.e. USS Yorktown class).

4. Cockpit for Avenger may still be possible.

Gunner_361st
12-19-2004, 10:40 AM
You know, there are a few good lawyers out there, but it really does seem they are in no way represenative of the profession as a whole.

It seems now lawyers have become the puppet-masters of today; exploiting, manipulating, twisting, and interpreting the law in any way they see fit so that they may win their case, regardless of whether justice is being served or not.

I've always taken issue with the U.S. Juidicial system, and I think I finally figured out my biggest gripe with it.

I hope this garbage gets resolved. Intellectual property rights should be protected, but in terms of history long gone... "Do you need Hitler's permission to put his face in a history book?"

Wemic
12-19-2004, 10:43 AM
While I'm not an IP attorney, it would appear to me that the publishers of PF paid fees to Northrup Grumman in order to avoid protracted litigation over the matter. IIUC, the question of these matters largely turns upon the potential lost revenue to the copyright/trademark holder as a result of market confusion (any IP attorneys please correct me). As I see it, there is no longer a market to be confused. The majority of these aircraft/ships have been out of production for 50-60 years and I don't see any military looking to add them to their arsenal anytime soon. It would be a fun case to try.

Wemic

reisen52
12-19-2004, 10:57 AM
>>>Well, I find it rather od that for all these years combat flight sims have been featuring these aircraft and no body said anything. Then all of a sudden.........WHAM!<<<


Wrong...this has happened any number of times over the years.

A big one was Lockheed vs. an F-22 game by Novalogic. Was worked out & Lockheed/Martin provided a test pilot to say some nice words about the game which was not all that good in the first place http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

Thing is maybe the other sim companies did the right thing & asked first as there is certainly no shortage of WWII combat sims with all kinds of planes, tanks & ships.

Zeke

ZG77_Nagual
12-19-2004, 11:03 AM
I posted this in ORR - but this looks more the place for it - whoop - I see we allready have it in here.

Legal Discussion on Game Developers Site (http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthread.php?s=526c07027f6b2a492680753e8011dcac&threadid=13370)


Anyway - I would think this a fightable battle - and I'm surprised UBI aquiesced - and moreover that they appear to have punished the developer - which seems odd - and questionable in terms of factuality.
It is significant that the 'Court of Public Opinion' has been mentioned. Certainly this appears to be a case of pure bullying as it seems unlikely to hold up if fully challenged. Sadly our legal system provides literally no recourse in such circumstances.

I've been slammed for suggesting FOCUSED INTELLIGENT letter writing. But Grumman should embrace this simm - not try to destroy it. One wonders if they even have a public relations department - and perhaps it is to them that we should be directing our 'suggestions'. Rather than to whoever initiated this - inasmuch as such an individual is unlikely to accomodate dissent in any constructive ways. (imagine what it took to write that without getting any ***)

GSNei
12-19-2004, 11:05 AM
If the information in the IGDA thread is accurate then I think they should develop ONLY Grummamn and Northrup AC, put them in the game under different names, and say go ahead ****heads, sue us, I dare you....but I'm just angry right now. They get so much good press on Wings channel etc. Do they think the guys who died in their cockpits were fighting for profit margin.

pfffft
12-19-2004, 11:07 AM
I wonder what this might do to those who might be replicating any of these a/c in the real world? Like the 1/1 scale composite FW 190, or Marcel Junca's P-51 and P-47's in 1/1 scale.

uhoh7
12-19-2004, 11:53 AM
we love you Oleg

ElAurens
12-19-2004, 12:10 PM
Gents, I cannot fathom how you don't understand just how much less expensive it is to pay the fee than to litigate it. It is horrible I know, but that is the way it is.

You don't honestly think that either UBI or 1C can hire better, or more, lawyers than Northrop Grumman, do you? Northrop Grumman's annual sales are nearly 100 times UBI's, and in every place I've been in the world one truth holds true... Money talks and bullsh1te walks...

t0n.
12-19-2004, 12:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1. The F4F3-S (floatplane Wildcat) is the completed aircraft that will not be included. The modeller was paid, but we will never see it released in the U.S. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well that sucks...

What I don't understand, is why if they paid, they didn't include the entire Grumman range in the settlement? Or was this a case of nUBIsoft attorneys with no idea what they were bargaining for making the best deal for UBI at the expense of the publisher (and their customers)?

MEGILE
12-19-2004, 12:24 PM
Copper I'd almost agree with you, if you weren't such a ******.

uhoh7
12-19-2004, 12:39 PM
Long Live Maddox games

F19_Orheim
12-19-2004, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
....how typically French. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

geez Copper, I thought u were better than ignorant. My mistake..sorry

1.JaVA_Hornet
12-19-2004, 02:16 PM
If Grumman and the other companies get
their sense we can expect other troubles.

I think of
- submarines sims
- tanksims
- jetsims
- marine sims
- race sims

What is happening? Grumman etc should be
very proud that they see their oldtimers back
on pc screens.

Loki-PF
12-19-2004, 03:09 PM
So the 1 million dolar question here is this....If we are to believe the thread in the IGDS forum linked above, and UBI did in fact cave on this and pay the extortion money, for using Northrop Grumman's IP, then why the hell weren't they able to continue to use Northrop Grumman's planes?

The other question is why now at this point in history did this become a big deal? OTher people have come up with black helicopter conspiracy theories here but I think I have the great grandmother of them all... Consider this.

Fact 1) We already know of the ties at the highest levels between MS and N/G.

Fact 2) Sometime in the last couple of years the gaming console has passed up the PC as the moment of effort for game development.

Fact 3) The only game genre to hold out as a frontline title on PC's has been simulation games.

Fact 4) Most of the other sim games like racing and sports have already migrated to consoles as a priority for development.

Fact 5) FLight sims are one of the last lone holdouts on the PC.

Fact 6) To tie it all up and put a nice bow on it, one of the biggest "sacred cows" at MS is the Xbox project.

Wouldn't be surprised at all to see a next gen flight sim show up on the console very soon by none other than MS....

LEBillfish
12-19-2004, 03:41 PM
There is nothing new about this....simply a new trend by companies which used to be run to manufacture a product yet now run by accountants simply seek to save/make a buck at EVERYONE elses expense.

You see, when you can produce nor create anything yourself you must justify your existance in some way.......

Wonder why the automotive industry...In fact ALL industry related to it in the U.S. has gone down the crapper from floor sweepers to part suppliers?.......Because the accountants now running the U.S. automotive companies are sticking all their suppliers.

However, as to this......Want a better laugh? Union Pacific (or another can't recall which) and the like sued and beat Lionel Trains for copyright infringement....As they (the real train owners not Lionel) put it on 20/20, "because it was a great source of revenue".

Foolish really, as most of us wouldn't even know of them except for Lionel Trains....Best bit of advertising they could have ever had.

What NEEDs to happen is just as with public figures, certain Buisinesses need to be re-classified as "Historical Public Domain".

Meaning, once a company name has reached such a status, then they relinquish the right to defend copyright of the "name" when it is presented as "something of historical value".

Meaning, Ubi can make a flight sim which shows the planes they manufactured due to it's historical value and events used....However could not actually manufacture the plane, nor use the name to represent something else or something they are making, nor misrepresent the item the name is associated with (ex. like saying the P47 was a worthless plane and making it fly like a storch in the sim with natural reasonable limitations).

Either that or simply rename the plane X-P47 and not use the name....As copyrights as to the design and form I would hardly believe still exist.

strewth
12-19-2004, 03:41 PM
I personally think all this stinks worse that a dead junk yard dog's bottom (not that I go aroud sniffing them). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Northrop should have been proud of the recognition, but NOOOOOO. If there a Dollar to be made, then that takes priority. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I agree with alot of these posts. Especially that the dead vets would turn in their graves to think that some greedy pig is screwing a format that honoured them for all it's worth. I f@rt in your general direction and wish you a very miserable Christmas and for that matter, may it last for the rest of your natural life and beyond. This is sacrilage of the worst kind you unscrupulous devious PR!CKS. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Now that I have let that bit out. If PF can slip out before release, then why can't these planes possibly find their way out into the community from a "leak"? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Sort of an underground market to bypass these fasciest P!GS. On a final note, I for one would donate directly to Oleg's cause if there was a letigimate fund set up.

THANKYOU OLEG FOR SO MUCH SO FAR. I SALUTE YOU AS I KNOW ALOT OF OTHERS IN THIS COMMUNITY DO. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

stansdds
12-19-2004, 03:53 PM
Pure speculation here. If UBI has paid the fee to Northrop-Grumman they may have paid only for the use on aircraft presently modeled in the sim, not for future add ons.

AFJ_Locust
12-19-2004, 04:11 PM
This is Insanity if its TRUE

Freekin Northrop is a billion dollar company wt_heck do they need with money from Oleg&/or 1/C

Like someone else said what about all the other sims before ??? The Evil & Greed of these corporate lawyers is unbelivable.

Im realy starting to loose faith in our USA law system, Its supposed to protect people from Exploitation, not be the hammer that smashes other peoples piggy banks, fun & hobbie's

These ******* Layers are out of control, Not all layers are bad dont get me wrong but theres a breed of Money hungery Scum thats messin it up for everyone.

Dirty Varmints !!!

BaldieJr
12-19-2004, 04:12 PM
Ubi did a very dirty thing to Oleg.

Do not buy Americas Army for X-box. Pass it on.

AFJ_Locust
12-19-2004, 04:23 PM
Iain McNeil
free user account

Real Name: Iain McNeil
Company: Slitherine Software
Location: Epsom, United Kingdom

Posts: 71
Registered: Aug 2003

What about every other game out there that covers this period? I doubt that Bliztkreig, Sudden strke, Civilization, Call of Duty, etc have all licensed the IP for the aircraft and vehicles they are using. I can't see how this is possible unless these guys are all in for a massive shock at some point.

===============================================

Ya what about all these games that use words & Weapons that are trademarked or patented or whatever ? There is so many. Picking on Il2 is garbage.

Bearcat99
12-19-2004, 05:20 PM
Some of you guys really piss me off with this BS. This is serious. Take your schoolboy jokes and leave tham outside. Copperhead one more French crack and I will personally ban you for a month. This thread will not become a BS flame fest or a joke post. In case any of you dont realize it this is serious and could cripple a lot of future projects.... So take the jokes, the insults, the wisecracks and leave them at the door. If you cant contribute constructively to this thread then dont post in it. Targ sorry for jumping in here like this and getting all hot under the collar... but ... this is no joke. So dont treat it like one OK guys? I dont know about any of YOU.. but I really enjoy simming immensely and the prospect of having historically accurate sims of this calibre taken away by some legalistic mumbojumbo BS reall REALLY pisses me off. I have been a tad bent for the past few days now so if I sound a bit psycho just..... Bear with me...... which surprises even me because I usually calm down pretty quick. Geeeeeeze...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

fordfan25
12-19-2004, 05:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Ubi did a very dirty thing to Oleg.

Do not buy Americas Army for X-box. Pass it on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


i dont play anything on the crapbox.Im straight up Nintendo G like that baby lol

rblanshard
12-19-2004, 05:46 PM
Quick question: I read in another post or two that "Ubi screwed up" and "Ubi has already paid hush-money and is now making Oleg pay them back". How did Ubi screw up and what did Ubi pay and how do we know they paid anything? Thanks.

Oilburner_TAW
12-19-2004, 05:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rblanshard:
Quick question: I read in another post or two that "Ubi screwed up" and "Ubi has already paid hush-money and is now making Oleg pay them back". How did Ubi screw up and what did Ubi pay and how do we know they paid anything? Thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
One of the services a publisher *should* provide besides marketing/distribution is covering all the legal bases. That is why the developer/publisher relationship has been so successful...let people focus on what they are good at (developer developing and publisher publishing). All publishers (not just game publishers mind you) have armies of people who check and doublecheck the "content" of whatever they publish for various legal reasons, including copyright / trademark infringement. Apparenlty UBI's "army" is not quite up to task and most likely are basically strong arming 1C:Maddox for money the same way they were strong-armed by Northrop Grumman. Be very aware, 1C:Maddox needs UBI a lot more than UBI needs them. We (this forum audience) are a very small base of 1C's sales (I would think) and 1C needs UBI to push it's titles so the $$$ comes back.

chris455
12-19-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rblanshard:
Quick question: I read in another post or two that "Ubi screwed up" and "Ubi has already paid hush-money and is now making Oleg pay them back". How did Ubi screw up and what did Ubi pay and Thanks. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To answer your question:
1. How did Ubi screw up?
We don't know. Not really, anyway. Someone on another forun who identified himself as a software developer said some things, and everybody here is running with it like it was the winning touchdown of the superbowl.

2.What did Ubi pay?
We don't know

3.How do we know they paid anything?
We don't. Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

My mother always said men were worse gossipers than women. She was right.

It's clear the Mods consolidated all the hysteria being generated in the forums into this thread so the community would have a place to vent without undergoing a nuclear meltdown. I think they should lock it. There is NOTHING constructive that can come of this; we have neither the information or the means to positively influence this calamity (if it even exists!) Some of the posts being generated here
could, however, do some real damage if some of the hotheads in the community begin to act out their fantasy "reprisals" or attempt to influence the ongoing course of events in some bizarre way. We can only hope that cooler heads prevail, and I think the first step towards making that happen is to lock this thread now. Oleg will tell us what he can, and in due time. Until then, all of this mindless speculation is 1% half-truth and 99% freshly churned BS straight from the rumor mill. It does NOTHING to increase our understanding of what's really going on.
Mind you: We know much less than we think we do. That's the only thing at this point you can be sure of.

VOL_Mountain
12-19-2004, 06:27 PM
Been reading this for a few days now my 2 cents:

We have to live by the law, like it our not. Even though I love IL-2, admire Oleg for his work and fully support 1C Games to resolve this problem I think they got caught making a mistake and now they must pay (some comments indicate IGDA (International Game Developers Association) they already have:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We are in the pre-production phase of a WWII based combat flight simulator (I know, not the best profit model these days) and just became aware of a situation that a Russian flight-sim developer ran into on their latest project that just released!

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.

Although I feel for the Russian developer, my concern is in regards to our upcoming project. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to that post; Oleg was backcharged by Ubi for the payment they made to Grumman.

What was the actual TM infraction? Latico made this post earlier and this makes sense:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> After viewing some of the info that has been researched by other posted here, I think I have figured out the problem.

By US Copyright and Trademark Laws you may not use the name, logo, or visual likeness of an individual, org, or company, without thier permission , in any kind of promotion or advertisment of a product. This law is intended to protect parties that are not involved with a product, company, or program from undue liabilities.

Now here is what I see might be the issue.
If you will look on the Bback of the box that PF came in, you will find that it list flyable US planes by Manufacturer and designation. (example: Grumman F6F Hellcat) Note the name Grumman which is the NAME of a company. Now if you have one, check out the box that MS CFS2 came in. All flyable aircraft are listed by designations and nicknames only. (example: "P-38 Lightning, F4F-4 Wildcat") Trademark company name is NOT included.

To clarify this, The box (or packaging) that the sim CD's come in are part of the marketing promotion of the products. The packaging is designed to get the consumers attention when it is setting on the store shelf. The graphics of the packaging should get you to notice it and pick it up for closer examination. The text tells you what is in the product in a way to further your interest. Any trademark names or logos included in the graphics or text of individuals or companies MUST HAVE PERMISSION from those entities before the inclusion.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Next, why would Grumman demand a large sum of money from Ubi/1C Games? Because they are evil or is this "Just Business"?

Here why I think its just business: MicroSoft and 1C Games are in direct competition in the flight sim market. If one or the other can gain an advantage (Ubi/1C Games would do this to M$ if they could; rest assured) it is in the best interest of a company to do whatever it takes within the confines of the law to overcome competition. Rhumor has it that MicroSoft may have been instrumental in bringing the transgression of 1C Games to Grumman's attention.

Now, Why would Grumman ask for such a high price? Previous posts pointed out that the CEO of Grumman Aerospace is also on the board of directors of MicroSoft. Logical to see why the CEO would push his folks to punish 1C Games.

In closing; What happened is logical, within the law and is something that companies contend with every day. It's sad 1C Games made this blunder.

Again; I hope this is just a "bump in the road of life" for 1C Games and not something that will curtail future flight sim development.

Oleg is a great man and 1C Games is the best game producer I've ever seen. Best of luck to you all and hope the next year ends on a high note.

berg417448
12-19-2004, 06:36 PM
Wasn't it also mentioned that Microsoft had also received a demand to pay from Northrop Grumman??

james_ander
12-19-2004, 06:49 PM
Admittedly this is a depressing development and reading this thread has been a bummer. But I don't think it's as earth shaking as all that. First, we really don't know what happened. Litigation is almost always way longer and more expensive than just paying up. It sucks, but some smart people probably work for Ubi and after adding things up, probably decided it wasn't worth it. And, sorry, there I go speculating.

I think they should just drop the stupid planes. Fine. I remember the Republic P-47 from CFS1 days. It was the slowest, least manoeuvrable, POS airplane on the roster. The Hurricane was the uber plane of the bunch if I remember correctly. Maybe it was just modeled badly and my lack of aviation knowledge prevents me from knowing the difference.

Anyway, I don't think this development will have the disasterous impact we are all predicting. When we find out what happens, we should consider writing to Grumman or whoever in a civilized way. It's a free country. At the very least if we get the P-47, I will make the absolute pukiest skin I can for it and trot it out on-line and represent Grumman badly.

Sorry for my rambling childish thread.

james_ander
12-19-2004, 06:51 PM
I would love to see them try to take on Microsoft. If I remember correctly Microsoft whipped the federal government and did quite a job on US antitrust law. They have more lawyers than I've had hot meals.

TAGERT.
12-19-2004, 06:58 PM
Im no lawer.. But.. after readying what KraziKanuk posted in another thread I *think* this is good news for Oleg/ubi? If true, it is also a recent event and may not have come into play yet?

Here is the link
http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/25853.html

Here is the text from that link

Important Trademark Ruling by Supreme Court"
On Dec 8 the U.S. Supreme Court decided, 9-0, that plaintiffs in trademark disputes bear the entire obligation to show how the defendants product descriptions, based on fair use, confuse consumers about the originating company.

IOW, it strikes a massive blow on behalf of common sense: the burden of proof now falls upon the plaintiff to show (a) consumers are confused and easily mistake goods from company ABC to be from company DEF and (b) economic harm has occured as a result.

The case originated over descriptive text that included a trademarked phrase. The defendants have won.

What it means to folks like us here is if you write "Not affiliated with the Union Pacific Railroad or General Motors Corporations, or the transportation industry in any way" you've erected a fairly good defense against confusion when you go on to describe your product as "An artistic intrepretation represented by an electronic image of a locomotive produced by General Motors from 1959 to 1967 as used by the Union Pacific RR in 1965, for use only as an add-on enhancement to MSTS".

Because such a description of your product is not only completely accurate but has established the nature of the product and the marketplace in which the product is distributed, both of which are not really relevant to the mentioned corporations, their marks, or their products.

See: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-409

The ruling does not change any legal understanding about the validity of registered trademarks, the plaintiff's use of economic harm actually done to over-ride a fair use defense, or the ability of the plaintiff to show overwhelming evidence of priviledged prior use in the same markets to overturn a fair-use defense.

Dave Nelson

PS This if from another post I stated, but was directed to post it here.

JG51Beolke
12-19-2004, 07:30 PM
Ok, But what about all those other Companies that have Planes, Tanks, guns, Auto's, Shps, etc. Will the be extorted for Payment. UBI should have never paid as mentioned in the previous link. They set a precident. Will all the other companies have to pay.

I say, rename the object in the game, model it slightly different, and call it something else.

That will surely fry their cookies............

SodBuster43
12-19-2004, 07:39 PM
I am with JG51Beolke, just rename the darn things. In fact just make an historical sim with all the planes renamed. We know what they really are anyway.

JG51Beolke
12-19-2004, 07:46 PM
Oleg should get himself a Fantastic US Lawyer, and try to reclaim that money from UBI. And then Distance himself from them. Would Oleg be able to find another US Company to sell his games? By paying that money, UBI started a Domino effect where they should have gotten a lawyer first before paying. This is pretty sad. They set a precedent. And I hope it doesn't snowball. But judging by the Supreme Court's ruling, everyone else should be safe.

GT182
12-19-2004, 07:50 PM
And along with what SodBuster43 says....

Why can't Oleg continue with the Patch with all that was missing from the 3rd CD as long as he isn't getting money for it? It seems the problem arose with him using the G name and receiving payment for PF.

Heck, we aren't buying the Patch are we? They can't make him pay for something there is no reference too in print, as there is no "box" the Patch comes in and no money is exchanging hands. All he has to do is make sure there is no G name in the readme file or anyother place in the patch files.

Popey109
12-19-2004, 07:58 PM
I think a mode should make this document a locked sticky in ORR, as well as send it too him€¦he and UBi need to read and understand that they do have protection under the laws of this country! And its Grumman that has the Burdon of proof. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

IL2-chuter
12-19-2004, 09:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG51Beolke:
Ok, But what about all those other Companies that have Planes, Tanks, guns, Auto's, Shps, etc. Will the be extorted for Payment. UBI should have never paid as mentioned in the previous link. They set a precident. Will all the other companies have to pay.

I say, rename the object in the game, model it slightly different, and call it something else.

That will surely fry their cookies............ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I do not believe this is a precedent. As a diecast model car collecter and aircraft plastic modeler I have seen this for quite a few years. It took until a couple of years ago to get a diecast Ford GT40 that won LeMans in '68 and '69 (chassis No.1075, no owned and driven by one of the Walton, as in WalMart, kids) modelled and on the market with ALL the sponsorship decals on the original. Those sponsors wanted a cut of the model price. That model sells for about $145. Plastic models are causing (oh the bad things plastic can do . . .) the same sorts of problems and modelling companies wind up giving the manufacturer a cut or look for more obscure subjects . . . that don't have a surviving owner.

It's not the lawyers . . . it's the law. And it could be changed except corporations have tremendous resources to show they are helpless without it (intentional oxymoron). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

RiesenSchnauzer
12-19-2004, 09:36 PM
The back of Ace Combat V says that it contains 50 "licensed" aircraft. This trademark business is not new and shame on ubisoft if they didn't know about it.

I don't know why the customers on this board are such loyal fanboys for ubi or 1C maddox because this latest excuse among many does not account for an unfinished product.

An add-on was promised right after release because of limited disk space (yeah right). Then it was promised after the programmers stopped getting sick (yeah right). Now Northrop is responsible for the delay.

The truth is that ubisoft makes decisions based on the bottom line which is what any good company should do. The odd thing is that a paying customer is giving a money driven company the kind of loyalty some of you guys are. Its their problem to solve so let them solve it. If they drop the ball on PF then remember it the next time you buy a ubisoft product. Enough with the undying loyalty.

strewth
12-19-2004, 11:04 PM
Nice on Schnoz,

Yes I am an OLEG FAN BOY http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif, mainly because he produces what I believe to be the best flight sim bar none. He also backs up his product regardless of ungrateful twits like yourself. If you can produce a better sim, the by all means go ahead. Making these things is a huge task and that's without some mongrel trying to whiteant you.

If Oleg is such a scoundral, then you are welcome to run back to uncle billy and M$ and fork out more money for an unfinished product that would never be completed and would remain for the most part, unworkable.

Oleg controls all the flight models which is a huge task. M$ probanbly only released theirs because third parties woud indirectly support the epileptic pelican willingly without payment. Cheaper option Hey?

Flydutch
12-20-2004, 01:25 AM
I always thought And I Am sure now that Producing A Sim Featuring The Mediterenian and North African Theater would be much better!
(For A sim with A Nice Wheater forecast, Yachting on A Blue Sea, Palmtrees, Beaches, Great food & Culture We could Always Re-model PF into A Mediterenean Sim, Get rid off Avengers, Crazy Cats And Company Lawyers, keeping the Carriers And The Sea:Hurries, Gladiators & Fires. Turn Midway into Malta! and get Piramids, Greek-Temples and Camels as A bonus!)
Btw I Am Seriously missing The German and Italian Axis to play with!

Dioscur
12-20-2004, 03:42 AM
Hello everybody

I am pretty new to the community, although I have the game since first release of IL2. I just want to say it is a great game and the things happening at the moment make me very sad in some way.

Unfortunately there are too many emotions, understandably, involved at the moment. Emotions are bad counsellors in general and decisions based upon them with additional mis(dis-)information usually yield bad results. Pop-shots towards some "alleged" bad-guys are not really helpful and could be rather detrimental in the end concerning future negotiations or agreements. Allthough I doubt these will be taken seriously anyway as the community does not have enough "weight" to back up any protest or appear as a threat to any "culprit". But they could be used by the plaintiff to prove that damage has been done to his reputation, which could make the fines even considerably more expensive!!

The legal issue is a different thing. I am not a lawyer myself, but do have some knowledge about copyright / trademark laws. The problem in this case is not using a P-51 "Mustang" or so per se. A product can only be copyrighted for 60 years. The problem here is, as stated by other calm members of the community, the use of the name Grumman for ADVERTISING purposes (i.e. on box of game)! This is clearly a violation of the TRADEMARK laws! Has nothing to do with the planes as such. If UBI really had to pay Grumman, this would be why! Trademarks do not expire.

The next misunderstanding would lie in the fact that people think that paying money to Grumman, like UBI has "allegedly" done, will be a legal precedent. Sorry, legal precedents are only set in a court-room involving the ruling of a judge interpreting the laws. If lawyers make a deal prior to that it is not a legal precedent. So dont worry.

Personally I think everything will work out alright in the end. I dont think (I mean if this hole thing is really true) that Grumman or whoever want to greedily make money going after UBI/1C. If it is trademark related Grumman HAS to intervene. If they dont they can loose their trademark (which could become common use)!! Sorry - I think it is there right to do so!

So please just all stay calm and wait to see how it develops. If Oleg needs our help and solidarity, he will ask for it. And we will stand behind him, I am sure!

Sorry for the long post. Everything will be just fine!

Cheers and merry, merry x-mas
S! & V!

Dioscur

Nero111
12-20-2004, 04:11 AM
Northrop can go and have sexual intercourse with themselves. We got enough planes anyway, and its their loss, not ours.
F*ck em.

james_ander
12-20-2004, 05:09 AM
I am more upset about the ?rumor? that there will be Russia-only add-ons like the Pe-2. I think the big worry for everyone is that Oleg will stop doing business in the USA and withdraw to Russia. This would be fine if we could continue to get updates.

I would love to have a flyable Pe-2 and see the eastern front continue to be developed. The eastern front is the heart and soul of this sim and while I think Pacific Fighters was well done, I continue to prefer the eastern front.

Another option which has already been mentioned is to pay for add-ons. I think it's quite reasonable to pay for additional downloadable add-ons of additional aircraft and maps. Bug fixes/fm improvements should be free. The IL2 series is relatively cheap when compared to Doom 3 and Half-Life 2. It also has a lot more entertainment potential, at least for me. I don't mind paying for it. Anyway....

poguedonkey
12-20-2004, 09:04 AM
G'day,

Long time reader, first time poster.

I'm Michael, I am commercial lawyer in Australia. I specialise in commercial litigation and insolvency, not IP.

Few quick pointers, can't have a trademark in respect of a plane and unless the chaps down at warmongers pty. ltd. have been paying the renewals on all sorts of obscure plane names from ww2 there isn't a registered trademark. Registered trade marks expire the world over if you don't pay the fees and maintain them on the register.

Copyright would allow the use of the planes in a game provided within one of the exceptions which it would be in all probablity. Copyright protects more than a trademark and the laws of tort but the limit of the property given by virtue of the statute is more limited in nature. I also understand from my law school days that in the US IP has a use it or lose it element, some form of laches operates to bar claims if the rights are not enforced.

Where you have huge problems is in using the name of warmongers pty ltd on the box. Your opening yourself up to all sorts of dramas, unathorised use of a trademark ie passing off and probably issues with misleading and deceptive conduct under the relevant fair trading laws.

IP law is in my opinion a bad joke for specialised practioners to handle, it really is one of those things where corporate greed drives the law more than good public policy.

Just for the information of all you right wing lawyer bashing types out there, its the Clients and Parliament not the lawyers who are the problem.

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 09:06 AM
"A product can only be copyrighted for 60 years."

In the USA, 70 years from the death of the author. It's not impossible that something can be under copyright for well over 100 years.

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 09:10 AM
We do not know exactly what UBI paid for. If it was a case of companies trying to assert rights to things that a court case would show that they did not have the rights to it still does not mean that UBI should not have paid.

Firstly paying does not create a legal precedent.

Secondly legal actions can drag on for years. If it led to UBI being unable to sell copies of IL2/PF for legal reasons this would be very bad for UBI.

We don't know what exactly was objected to (and may never know).

402Cdn.Valkyrie
12-20-2004, 10:12 AM
Well its good to see popele have calmed down a bit, witch is the best we can do right now. Most of us, me included, dont know much about how this works and we have little to no info on whats going on.

Lets just sid this one out, if they want us to know anything Ivan of Oleg will inform us, and like said by someone else if they need our help all they need to do is ask. But comming up with all sort of riot plane and other ways to hurt Grumman because of this is not the way to go.

RiesenSchnauzer
12-20-2004, 11:49 AM
strewth,
You are a perfect example of a rabid fanboy. You can't think clearly about the situation. I buy the products Oleg makes because overall he does a great job. On the other hand, that is not going to stop me from seeing failures, especially in terms of support. PF was released with the promise of an add-on download right after the release date and two months later there is nothing. Your fanboy blindness has prevented you from seeing this.

All of these rabid fanboys are talking about what they are going to do to Northrop and Ubisoft has not so much as given a brief statement on the situation. It is ridiculous to go after anybody without having the slightest bit of official information. For all we know this will be ubisoft's convenient excuse to shut down support of PF.

As far as MS goes I don't buy their products so it is a non-issue. Anybody who thinks ubi makes business decisions based on what a few rabid fans on these boards want, though, is delirious. Why do you think Ghost Recon 2 was realeased to console first?

Step back, take a deep breath and act like a customer, not a fanboy.

tsisqua
12-20-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
strewth,
You are a perfect example of a rabid fanboy. You can't think clearly about the situation. I buy the products Oleg makes because overall he does a great job. On the other hand, that is not going to stop me from seeing failures, especially in terms of support. PF was released with the promise of an add-on download right after the release date and two months later there is nothing. Your fanboy blindness has prevented you from seeing this.

All of these rabid fanboys are talking about what they are going to do to Northrop and Ubisoft has not so much as given a brief statement on the situation. It is ridiculous to go after anybody without having the slightest bit of official information. For all we know this will be ubisoft's convenient excuse to shut down support of PF.

As far as MS goes I don't buy their products so it is a non-issue. Anybody who thinks ubi makes business decisions based on what a few rabid fans on these boards want, though, is delirious. Why do you think Ghost Recon 2 was realeased to console first?

Step back, take a deep breath and act like a customer, not a fanboy. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct! How dare they allow fans to come here . . . people that actually enjoy this sim! The frickin' nerve of these fans! They actually like this game, and its developers, and come in here to say so! Everyone knows that these boards are only for disgruntled (i.e. postal) CUSTOMERS.

I have been here awhile, RiesenSchnauzer. Maybe not as long as others, but there is a reason why you are upset. I know that there are "fanatical" fans here that actually do more harm than good, but your attitude (at the moment) isn't any better than there's: destructive, however you look at it. When this whole IL2 thing was just getting started, Oleg must have spent as much time here as the average poster. He loved the game as much as we did, and even posted times when he would fly so that we could join him.

This isn't just another game, and Oleg/1C Maddox games is not just another developer. It is my hobby, my only hobby outside of work, and is the same for most of us here . . . these boards are indeed the place to come with a serious gripe, but that is not the only reason they are here. If some of us praise the game and its developer once in awhile, and you don't like it, refrain from the urge to call names, please.

Tsisqua
P.S. Now, off to GD to post about this "fanboy" moniker that I am sick of hearing.

strewth
12-20-2004, 12:45 PM
Yes, if you must call me a fanboy, then I am and still proud.

I would have paid double for a quality sim like this, so I still look at it as a half price bargain. Oleg has never let us down in the past and I take some offence to hear some twit **** off at him when his past record is just about flawless. Not everyone in business is in there purely for profit. You know there are still some people out there that are in business because they get pleasure out of what they do. I think some people watch too much **** on TV like that Donald Trump who drives people to get ahead by whatever means possible and almost derives some sort of perverted pleasure in saying "Your Fired!". This is the sort of attitude alot of people are picking up on nowadays and think that it's the way the whole world is going. Oleg has proved himself in the past, so I shall be patient with him. You would probably be the first one to squeal if some ***** was sitting on their throne ****ging you while you were actually doing your best.

One more thing, being Chrissy and all. Have you actually made something out of good will for someone as a present, or do you just float into a shop and say "that will do them", or maybe just not bother at all? Some people care more than others.

I wish Oleg and his family all the best for this season and I still trust him because I haven't seen anything yet to prove I should doubt him. ALL THE BEST OLEG FROM FANBOY NUMBER???????

RiesenSchnauzer
12-20-2004, 12:55 PM
First of all I didn't start with the name calling. That would be strewth, who is so defensive about anything negative being said about Oleg that he jumps to his defense.

I am taking the perfectly sane middle ground of being patiently optimistic that everything will pan out. I am not whining like a baby and I am not bowing at the alter of Oleg.

For example, it is a fact that Oleg said the only reason we didn't have more planes is disk space in the box version. Anybody who still believes this is a fool. They weren't done with the models and that is why two months later they still haven't been released.

Now from my perspective I wish they wouldn't lie like that but I really don't care. There are plenty of things to do with the game right now. In fact, if they stop all support at this very moment it will have been worth the money I paid. Some of you are so distraught about this whole Northrop debacle you act like it is going to ruin your lives. Get some perspective already.

This game is not my only hobby outside of work which is probably why some of you are so unrational about it. Get out, meet a girl, buy a dog, etc. Its not the end of the world.

KarayaEine
12-20-2004, 12:58 PM
Here's anonther interesting spin on Northrup/Grumman and their sticky fingers getting into everyone's pie:

http://modelingmadness.com/tomseditorial.htm

Makes me sick.....

Johann

x__CRASH__x
12-20-2004, 01:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
...This game is not my only hobby outside of work which is probably why some of you are so unrational about it. Get out, meet a girl, buy a dog, etc. Its not the end of the world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've got the girl, the kids, the dog. As I'm sure many of us do. I'm sure many of us are very well rounded people. However, that shouldn't mask the fact that this whole thing is just wrong. Some dipsh|t in an aircraft manufacturer's belly wants to break out from his peers, sees a cloudy possibility of monitary gain, and strongarms some hobby companies. It can be quite upsetting when you think about it.

tsisqua
12-20-2004, 02:11 PM
RiesenSchnauzer,

My apologies if you took what I said too personally, and yes, I can see that you are trying to take the sane attitude, at least from your own POV. Its the darn "fanboy" thing that I am objecting to. I read it everytime someone wants to say something positive, and there is someone with nothing better to do that day than to call names. Yes, I see that you didn't start with the name calling, and Strewth was a bit overzealous, but don't throw names back. It doesn't solve anything.

Yep, I have a wife, two kids, a cat, (just buried my precious dog the day before yeaterday). I am a professor of music at the University Of Rio Grande, Ohio. Trust me, there is more in my life than IL2. My over busy-ness is one of the reasons that I love IL2.

And to top things off, 1C gets slighted at Christmas time. Those people have families too.

About the promised planes on the box: It is on Ubi's head. Does anyone remember that one of the patches came at the onset from Oleg's own personal FTP server? It happened because Ubi charged Oleg for the bandwidth of placing a patch. Yep. That's right. They seem to have felt that 1C was distributing more upgrades than they wanted to host. It was almost a bit funny, because we all crashed Oleg's server http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Now, if Ubi just had to go into any kind of legal discussions over content . . . well, I hope you can see what I am saying. They (Ubi)are responsible for that content, and have the last word about when we will get it.

Once Again,
Nothing personal.

Tsisqua

strewth
12-20-2004, 02:57 PM
RiesenSchnauzer,

Firstly, my apologies if I offended you, but in Oz we tend to give people nicknames when their names are too long or too hard to get your tongue around. I shall no longer call you Shnoz.

Now for some quotes.

RiesenSchnauzer:
"First of all I didn't start with the name calling. That would be strewth, who is so defensive about anything negative being said about Oleg that he jumps to his defense."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"strewth,
You are a perfect example of a rabid fanboy."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"Your fanboy blindness has prevented you from seeing this."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"Anybody who still believes this is a fool."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"I am taking the perfectly sane middle ground of being patiently optimistic that everything will pan out. I am not whining like a baby and I am not bowing at the alter of Oleg."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"I don't know why the customers on this board are such loyal fanboys for ubi or 1C maddox because this latest excuse among many does not account for an unfinished product."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"An add-on was promised right after release because of limited disk space (yeah right). Then it was promised after the programmers stopped getting sick (yeah right). Now Northrop is responsible for the delay."


PROOF PLEASE OH ALL SEEING EYE!!:

RiesenSchnauzer:
"For example, it is a fact that Oleg said the only reason we didn't have more planes is disk space in the box version. Anybody who still believes this is a fool. They weren't done with the models and that is why two months later they still haven't been released."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"The truth is that ubisoft makes decisions based on the bottom line which is what any good company should do."

RiesenSchnauzer:
"Now from my perspective I wish they wouldn't lie like that but I really don't care."

NOW MY TWO BOBS WORTH:

RiesenSchnauzer:
"This game is not my only hobby outside of work which is probably why some of you are so unrational about it. Get out, meet a girl, buy a dog, etc. Its not the end of the world."

ANSWER:
I have a wonderful wife, two great kids and a dog and this is not my only hobby outside of work.

RiesenSchnauzer:
"Some of you are so distraught about this whole Northrop debacle you act like it is going to ruin your lives. Get some perspective already."

ANSWER:
I'm sure it would affect our lives to a large degree. We enjoy this sim and its realism and its unwavering support. If we didn't want to play something so historically accurate, then we might all be HALO Fanboys. I for one enjoy accurate history.

RiesenSchnauzer:
"The truth is that ubisoft makes decisions based on the bottom line which is what any good company should do."

ANSWER:
As I have said previously, believe it or not, some people do things because they get pleasure from it. Not everybody is a greedy money hungry P!G

If you personally feel that you are being lied to by Oleg, then here is your hat and I'm sure you know where the door is.

Don't forget to close it on your way out!

Aaron_GT
12-20-2004, 03:09 PM
Perhaps Bit Torrent could be a good way to distribute the next patch, Tsiqua?

tsisqua
12-20-2004, 03:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Perhaps Bit Torrent could be a good way to distribute the next patch, Tsiqua? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It seemed to have worked out well for the guys that got their pre-release copy of PF, Aaron LOL!

Seriously, I think you have a good idea there, but I doubt that it would be a good way to place an official patch. Also, after that whole episode the gaming sites started helping out in a huge way by offering mirrors, so the downloadability is really (now) a non-issue. Oleg has also stated that official patches must be released by Ubi abter "testing" (whatever the heck that means http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif). In this case it probably means that they are testing copyright laws. Do a search . . . no, never mind, search function hardly ever works here . . . Anyway, I believe I remember a post by Oleg saying that all was finished, and that is a good sign that Ubi hasn't released it yet.

~S~ Tsisqua

Gibbage1
12-20-2004, 04:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
(just buried my precious dog the day before yeaterday).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your cat did it, its the fault of the French for not protecting your dog and giving up, and M$ made the cat do it!

Gibbage now removes his tin-foil hat.

WTE_Grendal
12-20-2004, 05:16 PM
I think we all need to read this (thanks KarayaEine) as it directly addresses this issue and puts what has happened with PF in to the "big picture".

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KarayaEine:
Here's anonther interesting spin on Northrup/Grumman and their sticky fingers getting into everyone's pie:

http://modelingmadness.com/tomseditorial.htm
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those of you in the USA who are concerned should follow the advise about contacting the politicians.

strewth
12-20-2004, 05:42 PM
Just thought I would re post from anoter thread I started. I still stand by this.

"Isn't it strange how when there is a chance to make a dollar out of someone elses sweat, there is always some pr!ck willing to step up and beat his chest.

The IL2 series is a computer generated sim about aircraft now over 50 years old. I had taken a keen interest in the planes and even to some degree the companies that produced them. But now if this cr@p is true, I hang my head in disgust at any body that thinks that nailing someone that wanted to re create a bit of history (and in that people learn about aircraft and companies) to a cross for paying credit to a set of planes that existed so long ago.

This is an example of some Pr!ck playing games with the wording of the laws for their own gains and probably - EGO. If anything, all aircraft companies should have been satisfied with the recognition in the first place with the sim reproducing some of the finest pieces of machinery for their time. Shame on any B@st@rd that wants to nail a smaller guy for a relatively small gain. A much bigger gain was already being had by the initial inclusion of their planes in the first place.

Talk about Bite off your nose to spite your face!

I for one hope the greedy P!GS choke on their own tub of lard. "

Normally companies pay other parties for sponsership, which means having their name and product recognised as much as possible.

This advertising in the form of sims and scale models, plus any number of other things was already being done for them for free. They have a BL**DY thick hide to ask another party to pay them after giving them the recognition for free.

To me this is the ultimate in a GREEDY P!G not knowing when he was already on a good thing. Alot like killing the goose that was laying your golden eggs.

I hope these P!GS take into account, every time they scr:w someone over and force them out, that they will have a little bit less recognition than what they had prior.

I hope that tub of lard has plenty of grissle and lumps. It's better than you deserve. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Bolt40
12-20-2004, 05:53 PM
Then Airwarrior , Aces High , EAW , Warbirds and Uncle Billy Gates better lookout if this BS about companies suing over stupid **** like using 'their' aircraft..I do believe the American Taxpayer paid for every
U.S. plane put out in the war..no ? so wouldnt that make them..our aircraft ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

heywooood
12-20-2004, 06:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
(just buried my precious dog the day before yeaterday).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your cat did it, its the fault of the French for not protecting your dog and giving up, and M$ made the cat do it!

Gibbage now removes his tin-foil hat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

-_________________________________________

Gibbage - you must not be a pet owner type.

It was probably hard for tsisqua to even type those words.
I love dogs and I have buried two. Your joke is callous at best.

AFJ_Locust
12-20-2004, 07:00 PM
What can you do? You can write Mike€s congressman at this address:


Congressman Robert Andrews
2439 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515



Trust me, if he gets thousands of letters from modelers in the United States asking him to take action, Action Will Be Taken.



And you can also write your congress-critter and tell them about this problem - let them know your concern for the future of this hobby and the continued good fortune of all those independent entrepreneurs running hobby shops and mail order companies and decal-makers and aftermarket companies and their employees who would be put out of their jobs, and all the points made above in the argument against licensing.



If you don€t know which critter is yours, go to http://www.house.gov/





Type in your Zip+4, and you will get your Congressman€s name and office address and office telephone number. If you€ve got an unlimited domestic long distance phone deal, call the Congressman€s office and talk to one of the staff - they pay attention to people who call. Send the Congressman or woman a letter. Trust me on this, when a Congressman gets thousands of letters in support of a particular issue, they sit up and take notice. When those are thousands of different letters, i.e., not €œditto€ letters from some special interest campaign, they take even more notice.



Be sure to cc: Congressman Andrews, so he and his staff will know who else in the House knows. Be sure to call or write your Senators, too.



This one isn€t hard: you€re asking them to defend small business, individual entrepreneurship, and the right of the people of the United States to have the full enjoyment of the property rights they have bought and paid for.



And yes, do tell all your modeling friends who don€t come to Modeling Madness and who aren€t on the internet about this. The more the merrier and the greater the likelihood of success.



Or do you not want new kits, decals, and aftermarket products at prices you can afford for the continuing enjoyment of the hobby that keeps you sane?

AFJ_Locust
12-20-2004, 07:02 PM
If we dont stand up & take some form of action then we are as bad as them.

It has to be done in a civil way tho NOT F U & F THIS & BLA BLA BLA

People who are good at Intiligent Conversation might try the above Idea...

Or we might still hold off until more Info has been disclosed but by then it may be too late

Wemic
12-20-2004, 09:43 PM
I'm not sure if this has been brought up before but has anyone considered getting some to the vets who are left to weigh in on this issue? Surely the men who actually flew would be honored to see their contributions and sacrifices immortalized in current/future products.

Wemic

RiesenSchnauzer
12-20-2004, 10:43 PM
I would prefer to wait until ubi actually makes an official statement and asks for support. They may be in negotiations now and negative publicity might make Northrop dig in and be stubborn. If ubi needs help from their fans all they have to do is ask.

F4U_Flyer
12-20-2004, 11:46 PM
in case you all havent noticed it's becoming appearant that this issue is much bigger than ic and ubi. A post at soh reguarding the ww1 work being done by modders is in the mix so it appears this problem is spilling over to simmers , moddelers , rc toys , and who knows what else these greedy jerks are after! Check this out to see how far this could go ! http://www.cfcforums.com/showthread.php?t=10223

letters to congressmen might just be a necessity if we are to save many of the hobbies we all enjoy! Food for thought!

Fehler
12-21-2004, 01:23 AM
This probably wont get read by many, as it will likely be burried deep in the bottom of a useless thread, but here it goes...

For one, I dont like the decision that companies have made by envoking their right to protection against trademark, copywrite, or patent violations in this area. Why? Because like the rest of you, it will limit my fun.

But let's think about that for a second. Fun!

We all love this game and ones like it because we want to play soldier, or save the world from the bad guys, or play devil's advocate and try to change the course of history, but we all do this for enjoyment.

I have read numerous posts about how these aircraft manufacturers will be doing a disservice to the brave men and women that flew these planes by not allowing us to... To what? To have fun?

How can we possibly sit here with a straight face and say that? Men died in these planes. Brave men. But we make light of it by playing a game, and a game company makes PROFIT by commercializing it. That is the truth, whether you want to believe it or not. And what about the men and women that toiled to develop and produce these wonderful war birds? What about the test pilots that died during the early development stages? Is this game a service to them? How does the fact that others can have enjoyment and profit from the fruits of their hard labors show them a service or pay them honor?

Let's not kid ourselves. As I said in another post, we are all mad as hell because We are having fun, and someone might be raining on our parade. Nothing more. We can beat our chests, and wave our flags, but we are not immortalizing the sacrifices of people, we are making enjoyment of it! All the while a company is making a profit from it as well.

Now, I would like for all of you to ponder this question for a second: What if you had a company and your product was trademarked, copywritten, or patented? Would you like someone else making money from your work? Would you not feel entitled to some compensation?

You bet you would!

And guess what, there are laws that would protect you from someone doing that to you. Would you be the bad guy if, during the course of protecting yourself, someone got mad because you spoiled their fun?

I have also read how "Our money, through government contracts" actually paid for these war birds, thus, in some twisted way, they are really owned by us, to do with what we want.

Does that hold water? Can you go and buy a DVD movie, make copies and sell them? You bought the movie, didnt you? You own it, right? So why cant you go and make a profit from something you own? Why cant I go buy a copy of IL2 and give 50 thousand copies away for free? I took my money and bought it, right? Same argument, same answer. Hell, when I bought my copy of the original IL2, part of my money went into the development of FB and PF, so should I have been able to download the hacked copy of PF? My money helped develop it, right? WRONG You cant, not without permission from the DVD maker or UBI/1C.

The fact is that someone at UBI/1C should have gotten permission from the companies that they were going to depict in this game before they produced it for profit. I am sure they will reach a conclusion with these various aircraft manufacturers. This conclusion may or may not make us angry, but it is UBI/1C's problem to handle.

People here that are going off half-cocked have to first remember that they have no real standing in this argument. If you think you do, answer this question to yourself. How am I directly damaged (Money) by the exclusion of say a P-47-N in this game? You are not, therefore you have no standing. And if you (In some twisted way) think you were damaged, UBI/1C would be the ones owing you compensation, not the airplane manufacturers!

EMail bombing these companies, or writing your congressmen will accomplish nothing favorable. If anything, it will FORCE these aircraft companies to take a stand.

We can be mad. We can talk about how we dont like this at all. I am one for that! But that's really as far as we can go, both legally, and intelligently.

For my part, I can see all of this for what it is. I buy UBI/1C products for entertainment. They get my money for providing me with a product. It is a great relationship for both of us. Now they have to go forge their own relationship with the original manufacturers of these aircraft. If that means future products cost me more, hey, I understand that, and will gladly pay it - It's worth that much to me. Someone dropped the ball, that's for sure. I wish them the best of luck with it.

To Oleg and 1C, dont worry, there are a lot of us that will continue to buy your products, even if you have to charge us with the royalities that you will forward to these companies. That's how fair trade works, and we, as the concumer part of free enterprise, should understand this!

Destraex
12-21-2004, 01:53 AM
thats very sad. How can a name that many people uttered and is a famous historical saying be copyright by somebody? If you ask me it should only be the inventor that can copyright things (who invented the saying dawn patrol), and if it has historical meaning or is government owned it is public domain.
Its a very sad day when this litigation comes about but the games industry is bigger than the movie industry and they have the dollar signs in their eyes.
Car games have had this chain around their nexks for a while now, midnight club 2 had similar car names but not the same. You know games like NFS2 have paid big bucks and been selective with the cars they put in when you see real car names in the game.
Its new to flight sims but not unexpected.

I find that all history books that are sold will have to pay royalties if they mention grumman aircraft names in them!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Its like this stupid gene discovery copyright. We all have hte genes inside us but somebody else owns them WTF?

oddlegs
12-21-2004, 02:04 AM
What about vehicles?...would Chevrolet etc be interested in a piece of the action?

CPS_Shadow
12-21-2004, 02:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
For one, I dont like the decision that companies have made by envoking their right to protection against trademark, copywrite, or patent violations in this area. Why? Because like the rest of you, it will limit my fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That assumes that they have a right that makes it so that no one can create an image or images that has their product in it and then sell that image. I don't agree with you that they have a right like that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The fact is that someone at UBI/1C should have gotten permission from the companies that they were going to depict in this game before they produced it for profit. I am sure they will reach a conclusion with these various aircraft manufacturers. This conclusion may or may not make us angry, but it is UBI/1C's problem to handle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Other than a few rare instances Licensing of this kind has not been needed to create a Sim, why would UBI all of a sudden go out and ask people to pay money that they have not normally had to pay in the past.

Union Pacific has a special deal that they consider as a low cost option for model train manufactures to use their Logo on a train car. Note, this is the actual company Logo not just a scale model or image of a company product. They only charge them 3% of the selling price. It's a special deal because they want to "support" the hobbiests, toy companies and others pay more. At a rough count I come up with about 49 airplane manufactures in this game. (IL2/FB/PF) It would actually be less now because many of them have merged. But it would take just 34 to make a demand for over 100% of the cost of the game. That's rediculous! It means you could never create a sim with more than a handful of planes.

As to the government owning the right to these... I agree with most of what you say, but... it depends on the contract under which the plane was created. The contract could have granted the IP right to the government or the government may have only purchased the planes. It all depends on what we paid for. I do not know which is the case. And it may even vary from plane to plane.

And yes I am mad as hell because I am having fun, and someone is raining on my parade.

And... if someone tried to feature my product in a movie or a video game. I'd be delighted! Free advertising and promotion is a great deal.

Fehler
12-21-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CPS_Shadow:
That assumes that they have a right that makes it so that no one can create an image or images that has their product in it and then sell that image. I don't agree with you that they have a right like that.

Other than a few rare instances Licensing of this kind has not been needed to create a Sim, why would UBI all of a sudden go out and ask people to pay money that they have not normally had to pay in the past.

Union Pacific has a special deal that they consider as a low cost option for model train manufactures to use their Logo on a train car. Note, this is the actual company Logo not just a scale model or image of a company product. They only charge them 3% of the selling price. It's a special deal because they want to "support" the hobbiests, toy companies and others pay more. At a rough count I come up with about 49 airplane manufactures in this game. (IL2/FB/PF) It would actually be less now because many of them have merged. But it would take just 34 to make a demand for over 100% of the cost of the game. That's rediculous! It means you could never create a sim with more than a handful of planes.

As to the government owning the right to these... I agree with most of what you say, but... it depends on the contract under which the plane was created. The contract could have granted the IP right to the government or the government may have only purchased the planes. It all depends on what we paid for. I do not know which is the case. And it may even vary from plane to plane.

And yes I am mad as hell because I am having fun, and someone is raining on my parade.

And... if someone tried to feature my product in a movie or a video game. I'd be delighted! Free advertising and promotion is a great deal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is what makes all of this so interesting. The outcome of it all will make for very good discussion!

I truly wonder what sparked all of this in the first place. Was it some geeky nerd corporate attorney that was in a best buy one day and saw the game that started the whistle blowing?

Was it some corporate slob that got his pay cut that wanted more money?

I guess we will never know, but it does make for good speculation!

I, as all of us here, hope that UBI/1C and these manufacturers can come to a good agreement for the betterment of... OUR FUN!

I guess the main frustration is that we can only speculate because we dont know the entire basis of the problem.

But in the mean time, I am going to go blast the heck out of some unsuspecting SOB in my FW-190!

Horrido!

Akwar
12-21-2004, 02:42 AM
Ive been a hardcore supporter of this sim since it came out and love it.

But I must admit Im pretty ticked off,

From the looks of things we wont even be getting the Betty bomber that the box said was included.I could care less about more fighters but we were promised what was left off the extra CD and I expect Oleg and company to fullfill that.Its not right releasing everything to our comrades over in russia and leaving the rest of us in the world out in the cold,where Id say 90% of the fanbase of this sim lies.That really rubs all of us wrong.And to all the greedy aircraft companies out there with rustled feathers over this...........SHAME ON YOU!

Thats my 2 cents.

Regards,

VikingViper
12-21-2004, 02:50 AM
That does it! I'm officially cancelling my order of a B-2 stealth bomber.

Oleg_Maddox
12-21-2004, 03:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stansdds:
Pure speculation here. If UBI has paid the fee to Northrop-Grumman they may have paid only for the use on aircraft presently modeled in the sim, not for future add ons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right in definitions.

Fehler
12-21-2004, 03:21 AM
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason...

The.Mr.Frost
12-21-2004, 03:29 AM
Does that hold water? Can you go and buy a DVD movie, make copies and sell them? You bought the movie, didnt you? You own it, right? So why cant you go and make a profit from something you own? Why cant I go buy a copy of IL2 and give 50 thousand copies away for free? I took my money and bought it, right? Same argument, same answer. Hell, when I bought my copy of the original IL2, part of my money went into the development of FB and PF, so should I have been able to download the hacked copy of PF? My money helped develop it, right? WRONG You cant, not without permission from the DVD maker or UBI/1C.


Not even remotely alike . To begin with , you didn't by that DVD with Tax revinue to serve the interest of the entire country as a legitimate agent of said country , you bought it with your own money as a private citizen .

Secondly , the ONLY thing those companies have in way of legitimate {under law} issue is their corporatenames on the box .
Were they only interested in satisfying a trademark maintainance requirement {the corporate name} and ensuring they somehow profited from the encounter , they would have demanded a token settlement then offered a little in return like data or promotion of the game given it is good free advertising that keeps their name in the minds of more registered voters in a positive light {fun in this case} when the next polition who chooses military procurement cutbacks as the soapbox of choice which if successful hurts those compaies' profit line enourmously .
They are either being run by people more interested in playing bigshot {beating up little kids for pennies} to the extent they are going to hurt their image {Computer games industry out muscles Hollyweird , be sure this will get more exposure sooner or later if it escalates reguardless that the combat sim market is only a relativly small chunk of the market} or something is rotten in the state of Denmark .

Personally , I'm betting out of control executives are to blame . These things happen in cycles in every industry {birds of a feather} and eventually the purely ego driven "superfly" execs are removed by either shareholder action or they go to far to blatantly and the law opens the show : Kmart cleaned house some years back when a bunch of top executives got busted basically trying to ransac the corporation , then the shareholders finished the job and the company profits went up substantially . That's about the time Kmarts went from looking like fleapits to looking like profitable stores , smarter leadership was the reason and it will happen in the aerospace industry eventually also , especially as the Military depends on having sources of equiptment and development it can count on , not either giant ego waggons or dens of questionable characters .
Until it does improve , they should be fought when they are wrong {like trying to claim over models/representations of warbirds , official military names and designations etc given those are completely public propery ... Lockheed actually claims not only designations like P-80 and names Like P-38 Lightning , but also exclusive rights to "Joint Strike Fighter" which is an active military procurement program and could very likely be actually criminal -trying to exert any unlawful control over an active military procurement program is plain dumb- but should they move to action against anyone on the premis they own the name "Joint Strike Fighter" would be conspiracy to commit purgery , given it is complete fabrication ! If the Government wasn't so monolithic and full of egomaniacs , whichever party is in , they would have been spanked already}

strewth
12-21-2004, 04:21 AM
Oleg.

Thankyou so much for your acknowledgement and reply, be it all so brief. Alot of us know you have to be very cautious about what you say and how you word it. Thanks for everything so far and keep your chin up mate. You have alot of support going on. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Cheers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oleg_Maddox
12-21-2004, 04:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us.

ImpStarDuece
12-21-2004, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

THANK YOU for clearing up THAT particular mess Oleg. Maybe a few people will now busily be backtracking and eating some of thier own words.

I find the humble pie is the best accompanyment to a meal composed of premature mouthing off that the rest of us have had to swallow.

Patience is a virtue. It seems it is often taught but seldom learnt.

As it is, this mess has now gone off the boil somewhat. I will be offline for almost a month (can anyone say holiday in Cambodia http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ?, or girlfirend arriving for Christmas http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ?) and am totally cool with having the whole thing ironed out when i get back even if a little later. I just have a little faith that we will have everything explained to us, why would they hold back (excepting legal reasons)?

Oleg_Maddox
12-21-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
PF was released with the promise of an add-on download right after the release date and two months later there is nothing. Your fanboy blindness has prevented you from seeing this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only I promised it. Nobody else. Other may repeat my words about it.

However rework of this add-on due to fact that are known now need a time.

Its why we released dedicated server anyway and didn't wait for the new planes (and only one really promised plane!). And why we released new map and new features already in 3.01 and 3.02 before add-on.
Another one thing, we have still havy sick one of our main programmers... I told it... and to replace him is way more harder and take way more time, then to wait him a bit more.


So the add-on(s) with the new planes and add-on(s) with new maps will be 100%, but later. I still think you have enough to play with the only released content of PF even stand alone, comparing to anything other released in that area. Why not to compare?

DDad
12-21-2004, 05:54 AM
Oleg- Thank you for everything. Hopefully some way shall be found to include more US planes, but PLEASE let us have the IL-10 in the "rest of the world"
Is there anything WE can do that can help?

tsisqua
12-21-2004, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Oleg. If you are satisfied with the way that Ubi behaves, then I am tickled to death. Also, if we really cannot know anything till all this is finished, then there is no point of any more useless speculation from us. As you said, there is plenty of content here to play with . . . as I have said: for a very long time to come! Most of us that have concerns are simply worried that this would drive you and your 1C family away from us here in the Western market. Please don't let that happen, if possible . . .

Thanks, and a very happy Christmas to you, the rest of 1C, and your family.

Tsisqua

MaxMhz
12-21-2004, 06:55 AM
Thanks Oleg

Tsisqua said it already - Merry Christmas to all at 1C:Maddox, family etc etc

I'm sure I speak for all to ask you to give our best wishes for a speedy recovery to your programmer...

Oleg_Maddox
12-21-2004, 07:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Oleg. If you are satisfied with the way that Ubi behaves, then I am tickled to death. Also, if we really cannot know anything till all this is finished, then there is no point of any more useless speculation from us. As you said, there is plenty of content here to play with . . . as _I_ have said: for a _very_ long time to come! Most of us that have concerns are simply worried that this would drive you and your 1C family away from us here in the Western market. Please don't let that happen, if possible . . .

Thanks, and a very happy Christmas to you, the rest of 1C, and your family.

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsisqua,

We don't plan to work only for Russian market.
It isn't the case. We will find way to have Il10 and others for the rest of the world. But it may happnes only later than it will happens for Russians. The problem only in this.

John_Stag
12-21-2004, 07:20 AM
That's cleared up a lot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Thanks for the update, sir.

LEXX_Luthor
12-21-2004, 07:38 AM
Oleg:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tsisqua,

We don't plan to work only for Russian market.
It isn't the case. We will find way to have Il10 and others for the rest of the world. But it may happen only later than it will happen for Russians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
We wait okay. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Awsum! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Only in flight sim market you find game Developer that shares the same love of game subject that the gamers have.

Thanx Oleg

Itto_Okami
12-21-2004, 08:04 AM
Great to read words from Oleg... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!

Itto

ZG77_Nagual
12-21-2004, 08:06 AM
It's the American Military-Industrial complex I'm P*&^d off at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks for stepping in Oleg.

Zarathael
12-21-2004, 08:15 AM
Thank you Oleg. I'm willing to wait for things to get finished, as long as it takes, I just got extremely angry that perhaps you were stabbed in the back by US companies. I realize you do this to make money, because everybody has to have money to live. It is apparent, however, that the people at 1c do this because they WANT to do it, and do it because they love it, not just to create a "product." This love is apparent in every paint-chip, every bit of graphitti written on bombs....etc. It's why your sim stands so far above it's competitors, and why right now it's the only WWII sim on my PC. I am very grateful that you chose to do the pacific theatre, since very few sims have done it, and that ever since IL-2 came out, it was one of my pipe dreams that you would do the pacific to that level of detail, though I didn't believe it would ever happen, and well, it did.

Once more, thank you for the clarification,
thank you for the sim,
and thank you for all the great things that are to come.

John_Stag
12-21-2004, 08:38 AM
And I forgot; Merry Christmas to you and yours Oleg. Hope next year is a bit easier for ya. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 08:46 AM
Merry Chistmas, Oleg. I just wish there was a practical way we could help.

RiesenSchnauzer
12-21-2004, 08:52 AM
Oleg,
I agree that there is plenty to work with right now in PF without an add-on. By all means take your time and do it right.

John_Stag
12-21-2004, 08:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Merry Chistmas, Oleg. I just wish there was a practical way we could help. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I think we will get the stuff that was promised eventually.

Of course if it helps, Mr. O could produce the next batch of addons as a CD; I'd pay, NQA.

Fanboy? guess I am. your problem is, exactly?

A.K.Davis
12-21-2004, 09:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Oleg. If you are satisfied with the way that Ubi behaves, then I am tickled to death. Also, if we really cannot know anything till all this is finished, then there is no point of any more useless speculation from us. As you said, there is plenty of content here to play with . . . as _I_ have said: for a _very_ long time to come! Most of us that have concerns are simply worried that this would drive you and your 1C family away from us here in the Western market. Please don't let that happen, if possible . . .

Thanks, and a very happy Christmas to you, the rest of 1C, and your family.

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsisqua,

We don't plan to work only for Russian market.
It isn't the case. We will find way to have Il10 and others for the rest of the world. But it may happnes only later than it will happens for Russians. The problem only in this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is wonderful news, and I hope the December 9th Supreme Court decision makes this all a non-issue in the future.

crazyivan1970
12-21-2004, 09:34 AM
Takes Oleg Maddox to make everyone to believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks for those posts Oleg, really appriciate it.
Well gang, you do know dang well that i will running around with the big key since you got your answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SKULLS_Exec01
12-21-2004, 09:46 AM
Yes, thanks very much Oleg - I few little word from you - go a LONG LONG way!!
On hold waiting for new year till you can give us what every you CAN in the next patch... (and yep very happy with what we have now!!!)

Iven - don't hurt your back carrying that BIG key around!! ;-)

PS Oleg, if planes continues to hold things up, maybe just release a MAP and fix patch till the planes work them selfs out... (just a thought)

AlmightyTallest
12-21-2004, 09:46 AM
Thank you Oleg for clearing so much up for us. Basically I feel just like Zarathael he made a great post. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You've given us our hope again Oleg, take your time to get things straightend out. Hope you and your team have a very happy Christmas.

Hehe, hey Ivan, any chance we could get the F4U-4 thread back in the future when things get cleared up? There's hope again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'm very happy with all this official news. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Loki-PF
12-21-2004, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Only I promised it. Nobody else. Other may repeat my words about it.

However rework of this add-on due to fact that are known now need a time.

Its why we released dedicated server anyway and didn't wait for the new planes (and only one really promised plane!). And why we released new map and new features already in 3.01 and 3.02 before add-on.
Another one thing, we have still havy sick one of our main programmers... I told it... and to replace him is way more harder and take way more time, then to wait him a bit more.


So the add-on(s) with the new planes and add-on(s) with new maps will be 100%, but later. I still think you have enough to play with the only released content of PF even stand alone, comparing to anything other released in that area. Why not to compare? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg,

Thanks for taking the time to shed some light on this for all of us. One thing that has most of your USA fans upset is the prospect of no more USA planes added ever. Could you please take a second to let us know if this is the case or not?

rblanshard
12-21-2004, 10:11 AM
Thanks for speaking up Oleg. It amazes me how calm everyone has gotten and how much everyone appreciates what you've said in defending Ubi and what you've got planned with regards to future releases and current legal issues.

AWL_Spinner
12-21-2004, 10:30 AM
Thanks Oleg. A little news goes a long way in this pot of paranoia.

Happy Christmas!

Cheers, Spinner

badatflyski
12-21-2004, 11:05 AM
Thanks GOD-Oleg for this explanations, it looks to calm down our stress,paranoia and hystery.

As a half-german-half-polish living in Belgium il2 "FANATIC" fan,
i still think that "WE", the world SIM-COMMUNITY,should do as a UNIFIED
group is to TRY to avoid such "law pursuits" in the future.

Wouldn't be possible to make such a thing as a "WORLD ON NET PETITION" where anyone could leave his email,name,geographic location and we could send it to this congressman adress that we can find in this thread?

i'm sure we should receive hondreds of thousends virtual signatures from all
over the world,and not only fly-simmers!

We should'nt blame each-other or another country for doing this or that
but at least for once, we should stay TOGETHER and defend the cause we are
standing for : our love for aviation!The most off us here can't allow them to buy a real airplane or just the fly-licence so we have to support our way of flying : the flight sims!
Let's do this our way: the net!

ps: sorry for my english, i'm not the habit to use English every day so excuse all my faults

ps2 Keep on going OLEG, it's christmas every day when i fly the FW190...even if i'm 10cm too low http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

One13
12-21-2004, 11:06 AM
I am one of those (perhaps many?) who stayed on version3.01 because I do not like installing Beta versions and thought it would not be long until the offical version was released.
It seems from reading Olegs posts here and what was written on simhq.com that:-

1)That Version3.02beta is really 3.02, there will not be any quick patch up to an offical version.
2)The next patch (3.03?) will not be out until the new year (end of January at the earlyist due to Russian Chritmas).
3)Ubisoft want 1C to concentate on BoB so this is likely to be the last free patch.
4)Aircraft like the Pe-2 and Ju-88 etc. (which a lot of people are looking foward to) may come in a paid for update if enough Russians buy it....possibly.

Of course all this is speculation as there is no offical word (and it doesn't look like there will be...all info. released in snippits in different threads, boards etc), so to summarize....



two weeks

GT182
12-21-2004, 12:59 PM
Well, I for one can wait for any Patch... free or a paid-for addon. And now with Olegs reply we can all calm down a bit and enjoy the Holidays.

So, with the big Christmas rush on.... here's Oleg, 1C:Maddox Games and all here at the Forums....

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Merry Christmas"</span>

Aaron_GT
12-21-2004, 01:14 PM
"Of course if it helps, Mr. O could produce the next batch of addons as a CD; I'd pay, NQA."

Ditto, especially if it had the likes of the IL10 and Pe-2 on. (Plus I'd love to get my hands on the Ju-88, He-177, Tempest, Mosquito and even (shock!) an F4U-4!)

buz13
12-21-2004, 01:20 PM
It always is good to get the info from the top....I'm sure, Oleg, we all welcome your comments and info.....the more the better.
HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND THE ENTIRE STAFF! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Willey
12-21-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
We don't plan to work only for Russian market.
It isn't the case. We will find way to have Il10 and others for the rest of the world. But it may happnes only later than it will happens for Russians. The problem only in this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

You rock http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-21-2004, 01:41 PM
If you guys are not able to offer certain aircraft, ships, and other simulated game elements because some dumb short-sighted ridiculously greedy firm is demanding funds for use of their 70 year old products, then here are some ways to solve this problem:

1) Create fictional aircraft which have performance characteristics similar to the restricted planes. (EX: Thunderstrike-EN, Crusader-4) Then put a toggle on the server so admins can choose whether or not to allow these "makebelieve" airplanes. A lot of us I think wouldn't mind playing on servers that enabled these fabricated planes as long as these aircraft are understood to fill in certain performance holes in the historical complement of available aircraft. In this way you would avoid infringing on anyone's trademarks (or likenesses).

2) Open the sim so that users can create and distribute their own aircraft. Rely on other aspects of the sim to generate income from expansions (new coded features (EX: carrier ops, Norden bombsight, enhanced online campaigns), maps, historical campaigns, improved DGen, high detail historical battles, etc). You could even maybe host a review feature on your website where you rate or remark on the quality of user-created aircraft.

AlmightyTallest
12-21-2004, 01:44 PM
"Of course if it helps, Mr. O could produce the next batch of addons as a CD; I'd pay, NQA."

I'm with that, and agree with Aaron_GT on this one as well. I have no problems with paying for extra aircraft for this sim. Bug fixes and small tweaks to improve gameplay should be free, but extra aircraft and other significant addons would be worth the extra money.

I didn't know you would enjoy an F4U-4 either Aaron http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm happy with any addons, for any country represented in the sim, I just would personally like to see more late war Allied planes for us Americans, and aircraft that would make our British and Australian friends happy as well.

I find it funny that we actually are telling Oleg to charge us for the extra addons. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think there worth it, even if the price was low, it's extra income that could help support more addons and future projects, or even let Oleg experiment more with PF to help improve future addons and sims.

clayman_52
12-21-2004, 01:46 PM
Thanks for your words on this matter Oleg. To take the time from your busy schedule with the Holidays and everything else that must be on your plate.

....Thanks for everything Oleg ...

Happiest of Holidays and I hope you and yours have a happy and healthy New Year.

SKULLS_Exec01
12-21-2004, 01:57 PM
Sure if Oleg said we can produce these 12 AC and xxxx type ships for a payed add on, I would also buy it to help cover the fees being charged for the 60 yeard old planes.

On the other hand - if he made a flying box car with wings and said the flight, load and handling of this box car is similer to the Avenger (for example) I would also be just as happy!!
(and personally - I would rather not see Oleg paying these fees and encuraging them keep doing it - Please find a loop hole)

Capt.England
12-21-2004, 02:54 PM
Looks like Oleg should stop work on BoB, and make a sim based on paper luft 46 planes. If it wasn't built, could it still be copyright theft?

As I work for a company that made the engines for some of these planes, does it now mean that my company can also sue for use of the engines in the models?

Just goes to show how mad and bad mega corps are becoming in the world. The excuse they use is "It's in our share holders interests" is getting very thin. Perhaps big share holders could please help us stop this madness!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

chaikanut
12-21-2004, 04:06 PM
I have just read the copywright issue..

Now this is stupid, not greedy, just plain stupid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I wonder if some descendant of Gutemberg pops up and asks royalties for all books ever created.

Akwar
12-21-2004, 04:18 PM
Let me take back how forward I was in my post,

Forgive me Oleg please for being a bit demanding of the patch,I know it must be hell for you right now with the legal issues and such.Im just really disgusted over this recent revelation with the US companies.I mean for christ sakes these aircraft companies are whining about historical 60+ year old aircraft that are now obsolete and history.

Hang in there Oleg and team and keep up the good work.


Regards,

Aziraphale75
12-21-2004, 04:32 PM
I have not followed the thread thoroughly but thought this (http://www.modelingmadness.com/tomseditorial.htm) might fit...

I hope that something will change this licensing situation.

Cheers, Azi.

Zarathael
12-21-2004, 04:52 PM
I think this topic has pretty much run it's course for now, but I have one more question. I've seen a couple of posts mentioning a supreme court ruling that in some way applied to this situation, and I'd be interested in learning the details of that. where can I find the info?

Thanx all Merry christmas. Personally I'm going back up in my corsair to look for that D**ned fat man and his sleigh and his reigndeer. Hehe, wonder if the seat on that sleigh is armored....

Loki-PF
12-21-2004, 05:29 PM
Oleg,

Thanks for taking the time to shed some light on this for all of us. One thing that has most of your USA fans upset is the prospect of no more USA planes added ever. Could you please take a second to let us know if this is the case or not?

uhoh7
12-21-2004, 05:48 PM
Thank you Oleg for letting us know what you can. I have been critical of ubi but will ammend my comments based on your wishes. All the best to the whole team at 1c and may everyone get well,

I hope one thing is clear to you: you have many many loyal fans and customers who really appreciate all you have done.

uhoh7

Recon_609IAP
12-21-2004, 06:14 PM
cc, thanks Oleg - appreciate the update

heywooood
12-21-2004, 07:22 PM
Oleg....Thank-you.

Please let us in the community know if there is anything we need to do...aside from just shutting the he11 up and being patient...

we are more than willing to "send lawyers, guns and money."

MoritzJGOne
12-21-2004, 07:31 PM
Today, while Christmas shopping, I stopped at one of the better hobby shops in St. Louis. I have noticed that most of the US company models and many of the foreign ones do not print the manufacturer's name on the box. Tamiya does on all of theirs. But that is also a Japanese cultural trait. In the war, Wildcats and Hellcats were simply called "Grummans" (Ok sue me) and DC-3's were "Douglases."

I mentioned this situation and how it is being applied to both the model companies and sim developers to my father, who is 72. He mentions that there were B-17 models and all other types(wood or bakelite) made 65 years ago inthe war and throughout the decades in between and that these were in the public domain. Simply put, they cannot show damages as they allowed the 'intellectual property' to be copied a long time ago by Monogram, Revell and others. What they should be doing is to assist in the development so that they are correct.

Now, I cannot fault Oleg because in the Soviet Union, there were design bureaus and the aircraft were made in state run factory. These really were the property of the state. So, the US methods are a bit alien, to thinking people. (Yes I am in the US)

As to ships, most of the US carriers were made in Newport News. However, the contractor cannot trademark the ship's name as that is given by the government. So, I am going to argue that the image and design of the Yorktown CV's is in the publice domain and can be copied, just do not mention Newport News.

Personally after Christmas, I am going to write my Congressman and my Senators (one is on the Defence Committee). I will be speaking up for both the sim industry and the model companies and against defense contractors extorting these firms acting as if they owned history.

Hopefully, there can be some part of legislation which defines these images and names as being public domain and not owned by any corporate entitity.

MoritzJGOne
12-21-2004, 08:15 PM
I mentioned the B17. In the mid 1970's Monogram models did a 1/48 B-17 G. Did Boeing object or extort? Nope. In fact they provided the drawings and all assistance to get it right! (Much ofhte assistance from their retirees.) The model was so well done, it is still being issued and is on the store shelves this year! (Box says B-17G Flying Fortress)

My theory was that in 1975, there were still folks at Boeing and retirees who were on the line in WWII and wanted their heritage passed on. IMHO, today's corporate attorney was not around in WWII, and views these things a primarily as properties from which to make a buck.

NTESLA
12-21-2004, 08:56 PM
These lawyers seem to have failed their history courses and this is a very bad way to get back on their history professors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I also want to find a way to contribute on the preservation of history and the continuation of preserving these machines for future generations to appreciate and learn. Imagine if the Egyptians and Greeks would had come up with these outrageous laws for their monuments... we would not have model our current architecture with them.

GSNei
12-21-2004, 11:25 PM
For the model companies version of this you guys should check out this thread http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=114;t=002376

Mulleteer
12-21-2004, 11:49 PM
This has been said many times before, but I'll say it again.
This is matter of greed and few people in right (or wrong?) places, simply as that. I've been working with patents in highly competitive business for a while and seen it all. Especially fresh white collar employees will do just about anything to get noticed in corporate hierachy. These people really don't care about damages to public nor company as whole(!), just pure personal recognition and gain. I have refuted quite a pile of meritless IPR claims whose case, according to the opponent, seemed to be that there were same terms in title and claims.. Pure shotgunning, just file and hope somebody pays.
This doesn't make me copyright expert but I assume same holds in that field. I'm quite sure that the negative attention will force the companies to back off. Bad public is not worth a puny few k$ they could possibly make out of this. Also the fact that everything, from airplane design to air force insignia, are tax funded, really does not help their case. Worst part is that most game publishers and model manufacturers don't have resources to go in legal battle even when case would be completely meritless.

Search doesn't work so don't know if this is posted but FYI.

http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/public-d.htm

TheGozr
12-22-2004, 02:31 AM
All this talking, no matter what we the people we feel totally unpowered.
Peoples need to take actions, find teh way to fight back this , the freedome is getting away but i's ok we have tv and bad media and politics all to make us asleep litle by litle.

When will we find the way to fight back? Peoples must have laws to fight back those laws.
We must.

Is it to late ? are we already asleep?

XyZspineZyX
12-22-2004, 02:37 AM
Nice post GSNei!

Everyone go read that thread and write the congressman who's gonna look into this issue!

And be mature and level-headed dammm-you all. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

FI_Macca44
12-22-2004, 03:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RiesenSchnauzer:
PF was released with the promise of an add-on download right after the release date and two months later there is nothing. Your fanboy blindness has prevented you from seeing this.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Only I promised it. Nobody else. Other may repeat my words about it.

However rework of this add-on due to fact that are known now need a time.

Its why we released dedicated server anyway and didn't wait for the new planes (and only one really promised plane!). And why we released new map and new features already in 3.01 and 3.02 before add-on.
Another one thing, we have still havy sick one of our main programmers... I told it... and to replace him is way more harder and take way more time, then to wait him a bit more.


So the add-on(s) with the new planes and add-on(s) with new maps will be 100%, but later. I still think you have enough to play with the only released content of PF even stand alone, comparing to anything other released in that area. Why not to compare? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So all is clear.Thx Oleg for the news.You're reight-we have a lot to play with -the whole FB/AEP/FP and the old Il,why not coming back to it sometimeshttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI think the desire of some ppl to have more more more and a bit more planes made them blind a bit ,instead of playing whinning came.

Salute Oleg and 1C and everybody here

Merry Xmas

Aaron_GT
12-22-2004, 05:19 AM
AlimightyTallest:
My issue with the F4U-4 is that I felt the ratio of work to be done to get it in the game to the number of weeks it saw action is quite high. If the sum of all work to be done to add all the planes that could be done and the work needed to maintain it is less than the effort available, then more planes are welcome. I actually like the Corsair, always have (or at least as long as I can remember).

VMF223_Smitty
12-22-2004, 06:30 AM
Salute Oleg and Crew -

Sir, as you can see, there is no doubt that your talents and your voice is highly respected in this community.

Our wish is for clear weather and nobody on your six for a long time.

Happy Holidays

MAG-23 (http://417sqnrcaf.com/2index.html)
and
223 Kokutai (http://417sqnrcaf.com/Opforindex.html)

RAAFVirt75th
12-22-2004, 06:35 AM
Merry Christmas to Oleg and team and their family and friends from the RAAF Virtual Squadron.

Thank you for the best WW2 flight sim ever made.

GerritJ9
12-22-2004, 07:32 AM
As far as USN ships are concerned, N-G don't have a leg to stand on. Yes, many carriers were built by Newport News Shipbuilding........ BUT they were designed by BuShips, the USN's own design office. So IF any trademark rights are applicable, surely they would belong to the USN and NOT N-G!?
Tell N-G to get stuffed!!!!!!!!!!!

Loki-PF
12-22-2004, 08:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
AlimightyTallest:
My issue with the F4U-4 is that I felt the ratio of work to be done to get it in the game to the number of weeks it saw action is quite high. If the sum of all work to be done to add all the planes that could be done and the work needed to maintain it is less than the effort available, then more planes are welcome. I actually like the Corsair, always have (or at least as long as I can remember). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds so rational Aaron.... Until you realize that you've never argued so passionately about any other late war plane on the axis side. Only the F4u-4. "I actually like the corsair," yea right.

GT182
12-22-2004, 08:58 AM
There's a thought everyone needs to think about.

If this issue goes to Congress after the 1st of the year, hopefully it will end up as "Public Domain". The US Government contracted these companies to build what's in dispute and all was paid for with the people's tax money. We the taxpayers, actually our grandparents and parents own this war material as they paid for it with their taxes to the US Govenment. We, the people, are the government.... not Northrop/Grumman, Boeing or any other company.

There are other things that were in controvery over trademark and copywrite issues that the Government declared Public Domain in the past. It only seems right that it will be the same with this issue. This is what our Congressmen need to get across to Congress and even the Supreme Court if need be.

And if it ends up as Public Domain, then all the money paid to Northop/Grumman should be returned to Oleg. He wins, and we win in the end.

AlmightyTallest
12-22-2004, 10:47 AM
I can see your position Aaron, but we even had money that we were willing to pay the prospective modeler of the F4U-4, and Gibbage was helping by finding said modeler. This all sort of blew up when we simply weren't allowed to go forward with creating a new plane. I think the very same applies to the P-47N fans. They were doing the same as us, and ran into the same brick wall so to speak.

I hope this can get resolved, and I would like to see these planes in PF, even if it takes 2 years from now before we see them. It may actually even things up so that late war players irrespective of their favorite country to fly for could use their late war aircraft against other countries late war planes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Closing speeds of a head on pass with a Do-335, vs. a P-47N would be about 800 mph or more, pretty cool http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merry Christmas, and have a happy New Year also everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TheGozr
12-22-2004, 11:25 AM
A political solution is the only viable one. You cannot trust the courts to reach a decision that would exempt public domain products from the trademark laws, since the law seems to be at least ambiguous enough to give the companies a feeling that the legal fight is worth it. The only real problem, as I see it, is that the airplane model hobby constituency is not a very large one, so its ability to gain public attention is questionable. There is a real public interest issue at stake here, though, and I think it is what is to be exploited - that is, generations of young men who became the pilots who protected us and defended our national interests often had their excitement about flying first aroused by making models. Running model makers (and their contemporary counterparts, flight simulators) out of business is NO in the national interest.

RedDeth.
12-22-2004, 12:02 PM
Oleg good job. hey i got a favor to ask... could you get targ to un ban me so i can use my normal account?

thanks in advance sir.

Wseivelod
12-22-2004, 12:22 PM
Hehe, this is why buisnesses f - ing suck. I do thank Oleg Maddox, and 1C for the awesome simulators- even the chance to put me back in history, before jets, and fly by wire, and glass screens, and satellite navigation made all of aviation less romantic.

I guess we should take note that aircraft manufacturers don't feel the need to uphold the morals of the very country which they choose to defend! Lawsuits about 3d models!?!?! That is lame and inane.

This is ridiculous, but we all know this now. There is nothing we can do about buisnesses and politics, except move underground and wait for those dinosaurs to die- then we can move into their homes.

So, my winded message to 1C and all of the people who sincerely tie their lives into making quality simulators (Microsoft employees quit reading now): Please be empathetic to the fans, and stay with us. The fan base here is already large and quite successful. We have dedicated ourselves to the amazing arsenal which we feel that you have equal, and greater dedication to. Please don't leave us, and please release all nessicary add ons when this all blows over! The fans are what make this, and we all want to help in some way.

GT182
12-22-2004, 02:20 PM
In case you didn't see these please read.... http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/25853.html
and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-409

These 2 sites show that Oleg would be the winner of any litigation. Burden of proof is on the Plaintiff.... namely Northrop/Grumman.

And with them being only the contractor/builder for the Owner(the US Government) of the specified contract they have no claim as I can see. The US Govenment would hold any and all Copywrites and Trademarks.

It's the same as if I contracted a builder to build me a house that I had the plans for, said builder would have no right to say my nextdoor neighbor could not build or incorporate any portion of my design into his house without them giving consent. It would be my consent only whether said neighbor could use any or part of my plans. And only if I had a copywrite or trademark could I deny the use.

clint-ruin
12-22-2004, 02:38 PM
The problem is not who would win, the problem is who can bankroll fighting in court the longest [and who has the will to see such an action through]. I can't see Ubis interest in this one at all, at least, not by themselves. The gaming industry as a whole might have the stomach for it, but NG haven't gone after the whole industry, just little sections that are easy to flip over with the threat of action. Pretty standard behaviour in this sort of thing. If or when they go after the really big dogs like MS or EA or Vivendi [directly], then you might see this fight taken all the way.

I for one will be very interested in another side of this - people finding out just which side of the industrialised military their representative sits on. The battle of "we want to fly planes in a computer game" vs "this will cost us untold billions in IP loss and lead directly to factory closures in your battleground state" is sure to be both fun and illuminating for all involved.

GvSAP_Wingnut
12-22-2004, 02:45 PM
There is no lawsuit... unless "no suit has been filed" is a misinterpretation.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2004, 04:31 PM
Loki wrote:
"Sounds so rational Aaron.... Until you realize that you've never argued so passionately about any other late war plane on the axis side. Only the F4u-4. "I actually like the corsair," yea right."

The thread of the day was on the F4U-4. If it had been on the Do-335 you might well have seen me complaining about that. I've grumbled before about the Go-229 and 190Z - I think both are a distraction from core aircraft. Online since PF came out I've been flying nothing but the Corsair and A20.

AlmightyTallest wrote:
"I can see your position Aaron, but we even had money that we were willing to pay the prospective modeler of the F4U-4,"

The point is more the time of Oleg and his team. Oleg reckons the 3D modelling is 10% of the effort. I've offered to help where I can with photos of planes (how anyone can work with 3D programs and make a cockpit baffles me - I've tried and it is totally beyond my skills or patience). Part of my argument for +25lb boost planes is that it means no new 3D models to check, and hopefully less additional non-3D model work for Oleg's team than a new plane since it involves just additional engine power and seems the most cost effective way of getting new later war Allied planes other than those already completed and waiting to go in.

Anyway, we shouldn't let this thread get dragged into being another F4U-4 thread.

Aaron_GT
12-22-2004, 04:35 PM
"And with them being only the contractor/builder for the Owner(the US Government) of the specified contract they have no claim as I can see. The US Govenment would hold any and all Copywrites and Trademarks."

The IPR of the designs would lie with the company that fulfilled the contract, not the government that placed the contract or bought the planes. Whilst the designs were created at the behest of the government the companies did the work and the government was able to say yea or nay to them. Given the gaps in the P and B series planes, there were a lot of nays!

The analogy would be if you asked for some bespoke software to be created. The software company would ordinarily own the IPR unless a very unusual contract was drawn up. In the case of the planes the companies also produced export versions, which implies IPR held by the companies, not the US government. In the case of the P51 the original specifier wasn't even the US Government.

The issue is the concerns about the scope of IPR that is possible.

AlmightyTallest
12-22-2004, 06:29 PM
No problem Aaron, I understand your position, I'll leave this thread for the others. Hope to hear some good news in upcomming days and weeks.

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

Bearcat99
12-22-2004, 09:17 PM
Good to hear from you Oleg...... good to know that the spice will flow......

Loki-PF
12-22-2004, 10:19 PM
Bearcat....

What do you call the mouse shadow in the second moon?

darkhorizon11
12-22-2004, 10:41 PM
A guy named Warlok posted this in the other forum. He makes so good points although he loses his professionalism on that last line! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Either way the Mustang, Avenger, T-Bolt, Havoc, and many other aircraft were not only bought by the US government, but also the Russian government as well. Maybe the same law will hold water over there. But unfortnately, not that its any of my specific business, UBI may not be able to go to court (if it makes it that far) against such a big aircraft company.
Either way we do stand a fighting chance I think!

Here it is:

"Didn`t Northrop-Grumman already try this with an F-22 sim not too many years ago? No, wait - that was Lockheed-Martin. They tried to give an exclusive license to Novalogic for the use of *their* F-22. The US government stepped in and said it was theirs, and that it was publicly available. (The contract was with the US government, for the US government. I would imagine the same applies to any other aircraft, since governments aren`t going to merely license military hardware... . If they *DO* license the hardware, then these ******* companies can look forward to a flood of warranty responsibilities.)

I`ve commented on this before at length - if everybody follows this to its logical end, nobody will be able to afford to have any real world content in their games. Sorry, you don`t have the license from Krupp, so your M1A2s can`t carry any cannon armament. Sorry, you don`t have the license from Kalashnikov, so your soldiers can`t carry the AK family of rifles. Sorry, but you don`t have the license from the inventor of 5.56x45 bullets, so you`ll have to fly/march/sail without ammo. Architects will demand cash for incorporating their buildings into landscapes. Eventually brick layers and manufacturers will want money to reproduce their interlocking brickwork in texturemaps.

This has ramifications way beyond gaming. Think art in general. Photographers will need to secure permissions from every element holder in a picture before publicly displaying it... PHHHH, please, all sane lawyers out there, KILL THIS NOW. Lets have some reason here.

My advice to the developer involved here - fight them. F***ing corporate greed-*****s... ."

FI_Macca44
12-23-2004, 12:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Bearcat....

What do you call the mouse shadow in the second moon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,me not Bearcat, however I had to do this...Muad'Dib'.
Ond Oleg controls the spice.Who controls the spice,controls the Universe.

best book ever....

gombal40
12-23-2004, 01:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Takes Oleg Maddox to make everyone to believe http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thanks for those posts Oleg, really appriciate it.
Well gang, you do know dang well that i will running around with the big key since you got your answer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My x-mas present to Ivan.
Dont use um all in once

http://www.xs4all.nl/~nijssie/lock-key.JPG

The.Mr.Frost
12-23-2004, 02:50 AM
EDIT # 2 : This was the quote :
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem is not who would win, the problem is who can bankroll fighting in court the longest [and who has the will to see such an action through]. I can't see Ubis interest in this one at all, at least, not by themselves. The gaming industry as a whole might have the stomach for it, but NG haven't gone after the whole industry, just little sections that are easy to flip over with the threat of action. Pretty standard behaviour in this sort of thing. If or when they go after the really big dogs like MS or EA or Vivendi [directly], then you might see this fight taken all the way.

I for one will be very interested in another side of this - people finding out just which side of the industrialised military their representative sits on. The battle of "we want to fly planes in a computer game" vs "this will cost us untold billions in IP loss and lead directly to factory closures in your battleground state" is sure to be both fun and illuminating for all involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm contesting that A- The Aerospace corporations could win on sheer financial muscle {you could halt the case in America before it even got started by using a little resource and smarts}and B- that the government would side with the Aerospace corporations over lost revinue for the areospace companies costing votes in the longrun {It is only chump-change for those Aerospace giants to begin with and political reality is the big players are from the same families of the big players whom came before them and they will ignore party divides -parties are only vehicles to power , few genuinly believe in the ideologies- over something that would give outside players -purely corporate- more influence over their biggest stick of all , the military . That , and the laws the Aerospace companies would be breaking to press the suit in America are substantial -there would be others in other countries likely- and even Senators cannot push that evelope too far}
Unfortunatly , I'm dyslexic and don't think in words , rather in something like pure concepts , so I still have to "translate" what I'm percieving into something that I can communicate effectivly .
It isn't meant to come across as confrontational to Clint {it might seem a bit that way} , however I think he is incorrect as to how secure those corporate giants really are on the issue of the warbirds themselves and modeling them by other corporate and private entities .



Not quite .
Other than their corporate names those companies have no rights over the WWII warbirds {nor modernones} they built . They were entirely government property , period .

If any corporation tries to sue anyone over use of representations of the aircraft , military designations {P-51 , F4f etc} or Military service names {Lightning for example , the Military decided it ultimatly and they owned in public trust} then the very moment they decide on that suit they have conspired to commit purgery given they clearly have no lawful ownership over those things and could not be ignorant of that with so many legal experts in their employ .

All it will take is a good lawyer to correctly identify the specific laws involved , and a good P.R. type who is good at talking to law enforcers to get them to see the seriousness of it . Judges take a rather dim view of purgery , consiracy to commit makes it worse and Feds love busting corporations as it establishes theirdominance quite nicely and in such a case , any pork-barreler whom tries to interfere would be taking a huge risk of going to jail on accessory , conspiracy , obstruction and other charges {Senators have been locked up for less ! ; ever heard of Senator Raden ? That was the guy just one step lower than McArthy in the Reds under the bed hearings whom targeted the Jews in high possitions in Hollyweird ; he ended up behind bars over money he shouldn't have had ; that is considered less , make no mistake !} .

The Government doesn't seem to like the avaition companies much to begin with , then consider what happened when Lockheed tried to prevent Novalogic from producing an F-22 fighter sim , claiming ownership {which it still does last time I checked their Disclaimer page , article 7 on their website which was about 3 days ago} of the F-22 as intelectual property {they actually claim the name "Joint Strike Fighter" as theirs also , which is cheeky to say the least given it is a Military procurement program that is still current and active ... they could theoretically be charged with conspiracy to commit purgery on that alone} ; the Government stopped Lockheed clold , claimed its' own {lawful and actual} rights to the entire aircraft and program and that it allowed Novalogic full use to represent it in the game as they saw fit .EDIT Sorry , that wasn't the quote I wanted to use , something went weird , I'll try to edit in the quote I intedned to use

Were the government to allow the corporations to claim rights over military technology it relyied on to protect it , it would set a precidence for the kind of corporate interfereance that a hostile nation could use {gaining influence or even conttrol over certain corporations} to cause disruption to the militaries capacity to fight a war . The military is especially careful today as it relies so much on computing technology thus it needs full and uncompromised control over its' equiptment to lower the chances of say codes being hacked or some forms of virus "bombs" being implanted in important systems .
Do not underestimate how seriously the military will take a company trying to claim ownership of its' own warfighting property , even long since decommissioned and obsolete . Someone there in will notice sooner or later , and they play hardball . Corporations are soft compared to organisations of ment who willingly train regularly to fight wars and face the most lethal weapons an enemy can find .

The United States is in the middle of a war and those corporations haven't delivered quite what the Military asked them {numerous problems with the designs that had to be rectifyed} and delays that the corporations cannot provide fully satisfactory answers for {stretching out development to bloat the costs so they can charge Uncle Sam more is tough to explain satisfactorally without landing a lot of bigshots in prison I imagine} so their possition in conspiring to commit purgery by claiming in court full rights to images , representations , performance , military service designations and military service names is not as rosy as you seem to believe .
The Government {either party incumbant} can profit more by making sure corporations stay below government in power and influence as the families that dominate politics can stay in influence far more redily in a political syatem than a purely ecconomic one {the truely powerful hate change anyway} and corporations have been gaining too much power of late reguardless .
When a situation is a cut and dried as this one in question {not what Oleg had over their corporate name , but what does seem comming over actually modeling the warbirds} and it could create precidence that weakens the possition of the Military , let alone other sectors of the Government {it implies the government has no rights of copyright ownership in the longrun} then the offenders are playing on borrowed time on that particular feild .

Power flows from the barrel of a gun , not a ledger sheet not a lawyers slick tounge . Threaten to weaken the gunbarrels of the truely mighty in any way , and those truely mighty will get very serious and unyeilding as soon as they notice and fully comprehend the situation . Thatis the reality of it . Pork-barreling is less important to the real bigshots in power than keeping their "big sticks" as much in their control as possible .

DuxCorvan
12-23-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tsisqua:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Oleg, when this is all done, will you come here and tell us what happened?

There is too much speculation and people are getting angry, and probably for no real reason... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I will tell when it will be possible. But I'm not sire that it will happens till end of this year.

To all:
As for the speculations about Ubisoft, please never do it... They did all correct in terms of our agreement and even help us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Oleg. If you are satisfied with the way that Ubi behaves, then I am tickled to death. Also, if we really cannot know anything till all this is finished, then there is no point of any more useless speculation from us. As you said, there is plenty of content here to play with . . . as _I_ have said: for a _very_ long time to come! Most of us that have concerns are simply worried that this would drive you and your 1C family away from us here in the Western market. Please don't let that happen, if possible . . .

Thanks, and a very happy Christmas to you, the rest of 1C, and your family.

Tsisqua <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tsisqua,

We don't plan to work only for Russian market.
It isn't the case. We will find way to have Il10 and others for the rest of the world. But it may happnes only later than it will happens for Russians. The problem only in this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I love these guys, all together in a single post, did I tell? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And, thank you, Oleg. You'll find a way: you always do. The only software creator who answers your e-mails, and the only one I know that really loves what he does, despite the sacrifice that implies.

Thank you, you're an example for the game industry and a pride for all East Europe: who was telling you twenty years ago, that you'd be selling the best home plane simulator in the US?

You've reached far, you're a winner, Oleg, and this legion of aircraft lovers has earned a lot with you as banner. Il-2 and the following is more than a game. It's our posibility of living old dreams.

Thank you.

Aaron_GT
12-23-2004, 05:55 AM
"Other than their corporate names those companies have no rights over the WWII warbirds {nor modernones} they built . They were entirely government property , period ."

The designs were done by these companies. The US Government chose to buy them. They did not give away the rights to the designs by this (and sold export versions concurrently).

Zneg1
12-23-2004, 06:17 AM
If you guys watched the excellent piece on PBS as well as WIRED way back about the JSF competition, you can see that the government puts out a specification for a plane and competitng defense companies are asked to submit proposals and designs. These proposals and designs are 'intellectual properties' of these companies. Essentially the government has 'exclusive rights' to the 'production' model that is selected. However these companies are still allowed to sell 'variants' of these planes to another market. The question is does a government contract that is paid for 'by the people 'make a product 'public domain'? An airforce or marine 'name designation' surely would fall under 'public domain' if it had been widely used however trademark and copyright issues are not CLEAR on these issues since there has not been a court precedent.

Things have been moving fast in the digital world and courts and laws have been really slow in this area. But not having Northrop Grumann planes should not KILL this sim unless every bolt and engine and parts needs to be licensed too!

Maybe I should buy a lot acres of the Amazon forest and plant lots of trees so I can SUE people for a percentage of AIR they breath from the AMAZON!!!

F19_Orheim
12-23-2004, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI_Macca44:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Bearcat....

What do you call the mouse shadow in the second moon? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well,me not Bearcat, however I had to do this...Muad'Dib'.
Ond Oleg controls the spice.Who controls the spice,controls the Universe.

best book ever.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

hehe, good quote here that seems to fit with the topic...

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">"Deep within the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe that makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.!</span>
from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib"
by the Princess Irulan

blackTIE
12-23-2004, 06:46 AM
The government issued designcontests with proposed specifications for the aircrafts and the airplane manufaturers designed the planes according to these specifications.

The government also gave them the designations and the names. So I think the trademarks are with the government (or also partially with the manufacturers).

But I'm no expert in this field...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The designs were done by these companies. The US Government chose to buy them. They did not give away the rights to the designs by this (and sold export versions concurrently). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

TAGERT.
12-23-2004, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GT182:
In case you didn't see these please read.... http://www.train-sim.com/dcforum/DCForumID3/25853.html
and
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=03-409

These 2 sites show that Oleg would be the winner of any litigation. Burden of proof is on the Plaintiff.... namely Northrop/Grumman.

And with them being only the contractor/builder for the Owner(the US Government) of the specified contract they have no claim as I can see. The US Govenment would hold any and all Copywrites and Trademarks.

It's the same as if I contracted a builder to build me a house that I had the plans for, said builder would have no right to say my nextdoor neighbor could not build or incorporate any portion of my design into his house without them giving consent. It would be my consent only whether said neighbor could use any or part of my plans. And only if I had a copywrite or trademark could I deny the use. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Exactally! Note the date on that Supreme Court decision too! Dec 8th.. right about the time this was all going down! Too bad it didnt happen a week or two sooner then the UBI lawyers could have told Northrop to pound sand!

Zarathael
12-23-2004, 01:56 PM
My only thought on it at this point is that all of you guys are making very good and very logical arguments about Oleg's being in the right here, which he most assuredly is. Rule of law is behind him nearly 100%

We have a legal system in which celebrities clearly guilty of murder are pronounced "not guilty" based on the showmanship of their celebrity lawyers.

We have a legal system in which mega-corps create and maintain monopolies in blatant defiance of established anti-trust laws.

We have a legal system in which our president admits to purgery, is convicted, and recieves no more than a slap on the wrist. A couple of decades ago, this meant he was out of office.

President A's Successor is proven to be blatantly lying to the american people, those lies being used to justify going to war. Whether he was deliberately lying or simply repeating lies somebody else fed him is irrelevant. Absolutely NOTHING will be done about this. He even wins a second term, simply by the virtue of the fact that even in the eyes of most of his own voters, he was simply the lesser of two evils.

Absolutely nothing surprises me anymore with regards to the failings and incompetence and greed of our government and our business world. I don't think it's such a stretch to blame anyone for not really trusting "the rule of law" here anymore.

SKULLS_Exec01
12-23-2004, 02:12 PM
When did this become a political thread?? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Wseivelod
12-23-2004, 11:37 PM
hehe we are all babies in politician's clothes on this board.

GvSAP_Wingnut
12-23-2004, 11:54 PM
http://forums.utassault.net/images/smilies/red_eyes.gif

JungleGeorge061
12-24-2004, 10:59 AM
Simply put, if anyone can answer,
yes or no.
Will there be any more United States aircraft from Oleg and his team?

Loki-PF
12-25-2004, 10:55 AM
Going on the third time for this question in this thread.... Hoping to get a simple straight forward answer. Oleg are you still listening?

Oleg,

Thanks for taking the time to shed some light on this for all of us. One thing that has most of your USA fans are worried about is the prospect of no more USA planes added ever. Could you please take a second to let us know if this is the case or not?

Best Regards
Merry Christmas

AlmightyTallest
12-25-2004, 03:04 PM
Many of us have the same question in the back of our minds Loki, I hope we'll get to see more U.S. planes added as well. I really hope so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

AEnderby
12-27-2004, 06:30 AM
This kind of IP related lunacy only really got off the ground in Information Technology a few years ago. Micro$oft and the commercial Unix making plenty of the early running.Trouble is, once a couple of companies pony up the cash being asked, any loon with a law degree thinks they can have a go.