1. #1
    Can somebody tell me something about today's state of the conflict on trademarks between Ubi and Northrop/Grumman? Is it finished or not? I am just curious...
    For these who don't know the matter:
    http://www.igda.org/Forums/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1
    Share this post

  2. #2
    I wonder that too....
    Share this post

  3. #3
    I don't know any late news, but I guess Oleg will let us know how it turns out (if ever). On legal disputes like this, especially with big companies involved, one loose word or phrase might make the situation worse. Let them iron it out in the background and just hope for the best.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    The way to get around this, if it becomes a problem. Is to do what the Counter strike devs did when the gun companies came after them for useing the weapons names, change the names of to something difrent.

    Also though Gruman etc, built the planes all AC were owned by the US Govt, includeing official prototypes etc. Gruman and anyone else that tries to collect on names is in for an uphill battle especialy if wartime contracts are brought into it.

    Regartds, John Waters
    Share this post

  5. #5
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw:
    The way to get around this, if it becomes a problem. Is to do what the Counter strike devs did when the gun companies came after them for useing the weapons names, change the names of to something difrent.
    <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I think if they just stuck with "F4F" and "F4U" and such that there would be no problem since they are NAVY designations. But the box, game, and manuals spacifically say Grumman. The "Wildcat" and such names are "iffy".
    Share this post

  6. #6
    ElAurens's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    5,214
    I believe that on the Northrup Grumman website they specifically mention the images of their aircraft as being protected material.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Exactly as Aurens states, close enough image got legal attention and Olegs' models are
    to the decimal.

    UBI paid the money. I guess it came out of what 1C is supposed to get. Which is why
    it's not a good idea to pressure for a bunch of extra work, just take what they can give
    and hope they stay in business and able to call shots rather than UBI at the helm.

    Dunno if it'd cost more to add more planes than we have now, either. I offered to send
    $ and not taken up on it. Once someone has a good address, I think a people would send
    enough to add up. At least those who want to keep a good thing going would.
    Share this post

  8. #8
    You can`t realistically claim license to something that is so inexorably historically part of the public experience - the proper solution is to shut these greedy idiots down asap. Paying a license encourages them.

    I understand the circumstance, but somebody still needs to stop them. Beasides, if they wish to treat likenesses and nicknames as intellectual property, aren`t they susceptible to the active use limitations of any other property? Specifically, lapsing trademarks if the property is not exercised for 25 years (10? 5?); Marvel had this problem with a number of their old characters. My point would be that Grumman surely couldn`t have been utilizing these ancient aircraft in any substantial way in order to renew their claims (no new production runs, as far as I know).
    Share this post

  9. #9
    What a crock...

    The aircraft companies that supplied the armed forces during the war have
    pictures and all kinds of historical information scattered throughout
    a myriad of media. If push comes to shove they are completely out of line.
    Interesting, they didn't take on MSFT. I think they know old Bill has got
    the bucks to stop their train.

    Now, if the governments of the respective countries made a fuss that might be different.
    Different, because the governments paid for all
    the R & D, testing, and purchasing of those old
    warbirds. If there is any license owed it's those aircraft companies for promoting their business through projects their governments' funded.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    TAGERT.'s Avatar Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,293
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlok_0:
    You can`t realistically claim license to something that is so inexorably historically part of the public experience - the proper solution is to shut these greedy idiots down asap. Paying a license encourages them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>License? Maybe.. Maybe not.. But they sure seem to realistically claim them as a non-exclusive list of registered trademarks, registered service marks, or trademarks or service marks.. For example

    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...=0&ti=0&sc=400

    Scroll down or seach for P-38.

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warlok_0:
    I understand the circumstance, but somebody still needs to stop them. Beasides, if they wish to treat likenesses and nicknames as intellectual property, aren`t they susceptible to the active use limitations of any other property? Specifically, lapsing trademarks if the property is not exercised for 25 years (10? 5?); Marvel had this problem with a number of their old characters. My point would be that Grumman surely couldn`t have been utilizing these ancient aircraft in any substantial way in order to renew their claims (no new production runs, as far as I know). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Funny how so called ancient aircraft intelectual property can come back into play some 60 years later.. For example

    Northrop 1946


    Northrop 1996


    Notice any resemblance?

    You never know when something old will become something new.. And they know it!
    Share this post