PDA

View Full Version : I was not aware that Shokaku and Zuikaku were in the game



MoritzJGOne
01-04-2005, 09:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI tried a Val mission from Coral Sea. The mission briefing had me on the Kaga (not at Coral Sea) and in a Val with the single blue stripe for the Soryu and on the deck of the Shokaku. The Shokaku is correct!

I would love to see some tidying up of the campaign. Maybe the DGN is the answer.

However, I would love to see more ships: Yorktown class (CV5,6,8) and Kaga,Shoho & Zuiho, Hiyo & Junyo (sister ships), Soryu & Hiryu (sisterships), Taiho and Shinano (the great 'what if').

I had a conversation with a principal of a small, quality domestic plastic model company and tomorrow, I hope to talk with his counterpart at the large US model company. I am doing this to get specifics for my letters to my congressmen recarding the copyright scare tactics employed by our defense contractors. More on this tomorrow.

However, what I am hearing is that you can ignore the defense contractors, just do not mention the company names.

MoritzJGOne
01-04-2005, 09:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI tried a Val mission from Coral Sea. The mission briefing had me on the Kaga (not at Coral Sea) and in a Val with the single blue stripe for the Soryu and on the deck of the Shokaku. The Shokaku is correct!

I would love to see some tidying up of the campaign. Maybe the DGN is the answer.

However, I would love to see more ships: Yorktown class (CV5,6,8) and Kaga,Shoho & Zuiho, Hiyo & Junyo (sister ships), Soryu & Hiryu (sisterships), Taiho and Shinano (the great 'what if').

I had a conversation with a principal of a small, quality domestic plastic model company and tomorrow, I hope to talk with his counterpart at the large US model company. I am doing this to get specifics for my letters to my congressmen recarding the copyright scare tactics employed by our defense contractors. More on this tomorrow.

However, what I am hearing is that you can ignore the defense contractors, just do not mention the company names.

sapre
01-04-2005, 09:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MoritzJGOne:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifI tried a Val mission from Coral Sea. The mission briefing had me on the Kaga (not at Coral Sea) and in a Val with the single blue stripe for the Soryu and on the deck of the Shokaku. The Shokaku is correct!

I would love to see some tidying up of the campaign. Maybe the DGN is the answer.

However, I would love to see more ships: Yorktown class (CV5,6,8) and Kaga, Hiyo & Junyo (sister ships), Soryu & Hiryu (sisterships), Taiho and Shinano (the great 'what if').

I had a conversation with a principal of a small, quality domestic plastic model company and tomorrow, I hope to talk with his counterpart at the large US model company. I am doing this to get specifics for my letters to my congressmen recarding the copyright scare tactics employed by our defense contractors. More on this tomorrow.

However, what I am hearing is that you can ignore the defense contractors, just do not mention the company names. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I read Northrop Grumman has the rights of the Yorktown class carrier so it won't be possible to add to PF http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

MoritzJGOne
01-04-2005, 10:19 PM
They claim that they have the rights to any vessel built in Newport News. That is not a fact in law. The vessels were designed by the Navy Bureau of Ships, named by the Dept of War (now DOD)and commissioned by the Navy and paid for by the taxpayers. As boatyard contractor, Newport News was paid for their contract back in the 1940's.

I will have a bit more to say after I have the discussion with the exec at Revell Monogram regarding this issue.

FWIW: The current Revell issue of the 1960's kit of the Yorktown (CV5) is now called 'Battle of Midway Carrier' and in the fine print, it says can be built as USS Yorktown, USS Enterprise or USS Hornet.

Blackdog5555
01-04-2005, 11:01 PM
Im an attorney thought i dont do IP. But this is a bit crazy...The Lex and Yorktown were at the Battle Coral Sea. Cant have Coral Sea without them. I think Grumman would have a very hard case to show this was not "fair use". They would also have a hard time showing that the 3D image of the Yorktown is their exclusive trademark. They do/or would have case of of "tradename" infringement if you use their tradename without permission in a confusing way. But its like Ford motor Company telling me I cant take a picture of my Model A and selling it without giving them a dollar. Its political!

jconradh
01-04-2005, 11:16 PM
Regard IP, I was sent this by my brother who does considerable work in this field (not an attorney, however):

It seems as if the key to answering your questions is whether the marks were "abandoned." Under the Lanham Act (section 1127), a TM can be abandoned in essentially three ways:
1) the TM is not "used" in commerce for 3 consecutive years
2) the TM is used only in a token manner
3) the TM is no longer distinctive because it has
a) become generic (e.g., kleenex or xerox), or
b) been licensed without adequate control over use, or
c) been used by infringers without any legal action by the owner

During WW2 the government contracted and encouraged companies to build equipment so they let some companies retain rights on their designs.

Again, if these trademarks have not been aggressively pursued in the past, the owners may have already lost their trademarks.

Jeff

Diablo310th
01-05-2005, 06:30 AM
I wish all of this could be used in Olegs defense but sorry to say I don't think Oleg is going to do anything more about the Northrup/Grumman deal. Nor is he going to give us anymore ac or improvements concerning these ac. This is unfortunate but probably true.

JG26_EKat
01-05-2005, 07:00 AM
I guess I'm starting to realize that 1C's reluctance to move ahead with development on Northrop-Grummand aircraft is real and UBI is not going to back up 1C on this very petty move by Northrop-Grumman to acquire $$ for use of 'their' designs. But, I guess this is the risk of a 'closed' development design. As much as a closed design helps the game be stable for online (and offline) play, the available plane sets will always be a limiting issue. Still it makes me wonder since the TBF is already in the game, just not flyable, what is the real risk with a minor update to make it flyable? Also, couldn't 1C just re-name the TBF the TBM since GM manufactured the TBM? I know, I know, easy for me to say since I'm not facing legal problems. And I'm certain 1C is doing what they can. So, I'll just say it for 1C; "Screw Northrop-Grumman and their bogus TM claims". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Zarathael
01-05-2005, 07:34 AM
I think it's become apparent that Northrop Gunmen doesn't really have the legal ground to do what they're doing. Legally, from what I've seen, it would be very hard for them to substantiate their claims to these copyrights, and to verify that they haven't lost them.

What they do have however, is a lot of money, and all they have to do is SAY they have these rights, and the leave the burden of proof to 1c, which they do not have the resources to pursue, and as such, they lose by default. It really sucks, but that is the way our system works.

Capitalism at it's finest.

berg417448
01-05-2005, 08:16 AM
Not just Grumman. I recently read an article from the UK in which the Ministry of Defense claimed exclusive trademark to the roundel marking used on British aircraft. They lost a case with a clothing manufacturer but the article said that the MoD has been given the sole rights to use the roundel, which appears on all RAF aircraft, on items other than clothing such as military hardware.

MoritzJGOne
01-05-2005, 09:03 AM
One of the points I am making is that plastic models and computer models are the same thing, only in different media.

The model companies have had freedom of use for these since the war and it was not until the late '90's did some snake think that he was entitled to royalties. So, they have effectively abandoned their claims to the design.

As far as ships are concerned, these were designed by the Bureau of Ships.

J_Weaver
01-05-2005, 09:25 AM
Madness, its all madness! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

JG26_EKat
01-05-2005, 10:18 AM
This reminds me of patents as well. You might come up with a good idea, and apply for a patent, but if you try to bring something to market a better financed company can take you to court in each state and create such a burden that you can't possibly do it and must sell the patent to the corporation to make in $$ on your good idea. Not OK in my book, but it's how it works in this country I'm afraid. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

roybaty
01-05-2005, 10:21 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif Must...kill...all...attorneys

Except for Blackdog5555 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

But seriously this stuff is sooo petty and ridiculous it makes me sick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif