Ultronomicon - User contributions [en]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2022-11-05T04:42:56Z

Elestan: Use internal/archive links

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violated copyright, and whether their trademark applications would have succeeded
* How the licensing agreement might have affected these issues, and whether that agreement was still valid during litigation
* Whether the parties had misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_4_Wardell_Ford.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_4_Wardell_Ford.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-07_Ford_Wardell.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] A settlement conference was held on May 14, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], but the case was not settled until over a year later, on June 7, 2019.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.135.0.pdf]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/3/35/2013-09-16_Reiche_Wardell.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/3/35/2013-09-16_Reiche_Wardell.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/0/00/2013-10-16_Reiche_Wardell.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/a/a4/2015-10-01_Reiche_Wardell.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/c/cc/2017-09-29_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/7/79/2017-10-04_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/e/e5/2017-10-04_2_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/a/a9/2017-10-06_1_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/9/91/2017-10-06_2_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/f/f0/2017-10-06_3_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/7/75/2017-10-06_4_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/5/50/2017-10-07_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/get;3699873]
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/e/e2/Stardock_Proposed_Settlement.pdf Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018] (Mirror)

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]

==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Fwiffo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Druuge]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chmmr]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ghosts of the Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III) (Was blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch The Ur-Quan Masters]" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.) (No use demonstrated)
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch SUPER-MELEE]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Orz]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Melnorme]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch VUX]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Yehat]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Taalo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Dnyarri]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pkunk]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chenjesu]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Spathi]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ur-Quan]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Arilou]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ilwrath]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Syreen]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Androsynth]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Crimson Corporation]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy Games]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

File:2015-10-01 Reiche Wardell.png

2022-11-05T04:26:32Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2013-10-16 Reiche Wardell.png

2022-11-05T04:26:12Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2013-09-16 Reiche Wardell.png

2022-11-05T04:25:57Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2022-11-05T03:35:46Z

Elestan: /* Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 */ Use internal links.

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violated copyright, and whether their trademark applications would have succeeded
* How the licensing agreement might have affected these issues, and whether that agreement was still valid during litigation
* Whether the parties had misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] A settlement conference was held on May 14, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], but the case was not settled until over a year later, on June 7, 2019.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.135.0.pdf]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-09-29_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-04_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-04_2_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_1_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_2_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_3_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-06_4_Wardell_Ford.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-07_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/e/e2/Stardock_Proposed_Settlement.pdf Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018] (Mirror)

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]

==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Fwiffo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Druuge]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chmmr]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ghosts of the Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III) (Was blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch The Ur-Quan Masters]" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.) (No use demonstrated)
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch SUPER-MELEE]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Orz]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Melnorme]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch VUX]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Yehat]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Taalo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Dnyarri]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pkunk]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chenjesu]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Spathi]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ur-Quan]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Arilou]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ilwrath]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Syreen]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Androsynth]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Crimson Corporation]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy Games]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

File:2017-10-07 Ford Wardell.png

2022-11-05T03:26:07Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-10-06 4 Wardell Ford.png

2022-11-05T03:25:42Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-10-06 3 Ford Wardell.png

2022-11-05T03:25:07Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-10-06 2 Wardell Ford.png

2022-11-05T03:24:36Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-10-06 1 Ford Wardell.png

2022-11-05T03:24:02Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-10-04 2 Wardell Ford.png

2022-11-05T03:22:55Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

File:2017-09-29 Wardell Ford.png

2022-11-05T03:22:15Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2021-06-13T18:01:25Z

Elestan: /* Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 */ Change to internal link.

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violated copyright, and whether their trademark applications would have succeeded
* How the licensing agreement might have affected these issues, and whether that agreement was still valid during litigation
* Whether the parties had misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] A settlement conference was held on May 14, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], but the case was not settled until over a year later, on June 7, 2019.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.135.0.pdf]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:2017-10-04_Ford_Wardell.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/e/e2/Stardock_Proposed_Settlement.pdf Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018] (Mirror)

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]

==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Fwiffo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Druuge]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chmmr]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ghosts of the Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III) (Was blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch The Ur-Quan Masters]" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.) (No use demonstrated)
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch SUPER-MELEE]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Orz]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Melnorme]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch VUX]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Yehat]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Taalo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Dnyarri]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pkunk]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chenjesu]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Spathi]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ur-Quan]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Arilou]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ilwrath]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Syreen]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Androsynth]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Crimson Corporation]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy Games]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

File:2017-10-04 Ford Wardell.png

2021-06-13T17:31:07Z

Elestan: Email image related to the suit.

== Summary ==
Email image related to the suit.

Talk:Main Page

2021-05-14T17:04:05Z

Elestan: /* "Ur-Quan Masters Universe" (admin needed) */ new section

==Spoiler Warning==

This warning isn't really the "first", "last", nor "only" spoiler warning. -- [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 13:24, 27 Oct 2004 (CEST)

Then call it The Spoiler Warning of Now and Forever. If you really think it's over the top, you can tone it down, but I think it gets the point accross well. [[User:Mmrnmhrm|Mmrnmhrm]] 17:30, 27 Oct 2004 (CEST)

What is the status of the data on this page? Can it all be copied over the main wikipedia due to being free license or is it different to normal wikipedia?
:I would think the folks over at Wikipedia would probably truncate or reject some of our more indepth articles, the logic being that we're the indepth SC2 wiki, and they're the not-so-indepth everything wiki. Aside from that, I would ask the author of the article in question, first. -[[User:Luminar|Luminar]] 00:53, 26 March 2006 (CET)

::The top of this discussion page looked a bit untidy. I've added a heading to the above conversation, to push it below the contents. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 12:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

==Spam==

As long as the spam is looking to delete the bottom-most section, it might as well be a one that's not so important.

:It's not that important actually. There's already a link to the copyright page on the bottom of every page here.
:— [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 11:12, 28 January 2006 (CET)

:I daresay the spam has developed to a more malicious and overwhelming level rather than just petty and annoying. How long has this crap been going on for, and is there any way we can actually prevent or protect against spam before it actually happens, because otherwise all of the work on this wiki is going to be counter-vandalism. I feel kind of bad myself for choking up the change log with pseudo-reversions rather than actual article work. -[[User:Luminar|Luminar]] 16:58, 9 March 2006 (CET)

::Perhaps we can implement a bot-defense system such as a captcha (prompting users to type in a random word that appears in an image) on either a per-registration, per-login, or per-post basis. Per-post would be the most effective, but it might be a hindrance to actual contributors.
::I think the newer versions of mediawiki come with a captcha option... it's certainly worth a try. -[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]] 07:56, 10 March 2006 (CET)

:::I just noticed that on wikiquote, they automatically detect when you are adding external links to a page and generate a captcha. (Captchas are not generated for normal editing.) If there's any way for us to enable this feature, I think we ought to ASAP. It should help tremendously with hindering spammers, while not getting in the way of day-to-day wiki operations for our editors. -[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]] 17:25, 14 April 2006 (CEST)

::::I just realized someone had already enabled this feature when I was adding an external link to the music section. That's good then, hopefully it will deter the link spammers. -[[User:Fadookie|Fadookie]] 19:24, 14 April 2006 (CEST)

:::::Yeah, on the 11 March. It doesn't so much deter spam as make automated spam impractical. And it's quite noticable. We now only have the occasional manual spammer. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 12:37, 15 April 2006 (CEST)

::::::Getting spammed rather badly again now, in the form of huge numbers of presumably fake users being added. I don't know whether this causes a problem (beyond messing up "Recent changes" since each new user appears as a change); if so, presumably putting a Captcha on registration would fix it. [[User:Wombat140|Wombat140]] ([[User talk:Wombat140|talk]]) 15:27, 30 January 2017 (CET)

==Suggestions==
I suggest putting links to the other SC2-related websites on the mainpage, e.g.
Forum http://uqm.stack.nl/forum, sf.net, bug-report-page, etc.
-[[User:HaJo|HaJo]] 22 February 2006 (CET)
:Well, there is already a wikilink to the [[Links]] page down in the lower left. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 01:47, 23 February 2006 (CET)

Perhaps this page should be protected since it sees a lot of vandalism?
--[[User:Luminar|Luminar]] 21:53, 24 February 2006 (CET)

:That wouldn't help. They'd just pick another page. This way at least it's easy to see, and it's better that this page is spammed than some article page.
:— [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 05:43, 25 February 2006 (CET)

Assertion 1: Ur-quan masters equivalent of Star Control II. Assertion 2: Star Control I and Star Control III are in existence. Assertion 3: Full knowledge of Star Control requires full knowledge of series. Assertion 4: Database identified as Ultronomicon deals exclusively with Ur-quan Masters. Conclusion A: Star Control databases must include information on Star Control I and Star Control III. Conclusion B: Database identified as Ultronomicon is incomplete. Query: Units identified as Humans from Earth are directed to either affirm or negate this argument. [[User:Daktaklakpak|Daktaklakpak]] 00:35, 10 February 2007 (CET)

The Ultronomicon is not for SC3 stuff. See your talk page. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 18:05, 10 February 2007 (CET)

Statment: Information reveiwed. Query: Reasons as to ordering. Assertion 1: Wikis allow fanfic articles. Assertion 1 sub a: See [[Black Spathi Squadron]]. Assertion 2: SC3 equivalent of fanfic and/or cannon. Conclusion: Exclusion of SC3 equivalent of prejeduce. -An attempt to be logical by [[User:Daktaklakpak|Daktaklakpak]] 22:00, 14 February 2007 (CET)

:The BSS page is not fanfic. The page does briefly include a reference/meta-information to the use of the BSS in fanfic. In reality, we've tried specifically to keep fanfic out. As SvdB has already pointed out to you ''numerous'' times, the Ultronomicon is dedicated to the description of the Star Control universe as intended by TFB (see [[Canon]]). The BSS is in that universe, hence the page. SC3 was not created by TFB, therefore none of the mythology, history, or other information of the SC universe it presents will be included in the Ultronomicon. period. This is not prejudice, as those of us of this opinion have likely played SC3, measured it and found it lackluster in comparison to TFB's SC1 and SC2. If you want to add information from SC1 or SC2, please do. Otherwise, please refrain from continuing to flog a decaying equine. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 22:38, 14 February 2007 (CET)

Daktaklakpak: You'll find that the administrators of the Ultronomicon are on one line regarding this policy. If you want to contribute, there's still plenty to be done. But what you're doing now is just a waste of time. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 00:04, 15 February 2007 (CET)

Query: Ownership of Trademark equivalent of Accolade. -Another attempt at logic by [[User:Daktaklakpak|Daktaklakpak]] 01:20, 16 February 2007 (CET)

Hi there. Sorry, this is probably not the best place, but I don't know where else to put my comment. I'd like to see more screenshots of the actual game. I've never played or seen The Ur-Quan Masters or Star Control, and so to fully understand and learn about them I need to SEE something....... I came here from the Wikipedia article about Star Control.
Yours interestedly,
Gregor --[[User:89.196.12.185|89.196.12.185]] 12:51, 10 July 2007 (CEST)

== Nice work ==

I haven't really been paying attention to the developments on the Ultronomicon, but I must say it keeps getting better. I'm glad to see that people are still spending time on it.

As I see it, the weak points at the moment are the overview pages. In particular the [[Main Page]] and some of the pages it links to are pretty bad (mainly the layout). As those are the pages which a first-time visitor will see first, improving them could significally help the general impression people get when they visit the Ultronomicon.
— [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 21:42, 23 March 2008 (CET)

Elvish Pillager's Crazy Mod has its own section devoted to it so I guess you could make a wiki page for that. If you want webspace to host that quiz, The Pages of Now and Forever would be a better place to look. --[[User:Shiver|Shiver]] 05:27, 14 October 2008 (CEST)

:[[EP-Mod]] only has a page devoted to it because it is a major modification. This quiz is just a minor project. This site is primarily for information on Star Control (both the universe and the games). [[User:Valaggar|Valaggar]] 13:51, 14 October 2008 (CEST)

::I have to agree with Val on this one. IMO it doesn't merit a page, but we could add a link for it at [[Links#Fan pages]]. Another good metric (though not a perfect one) for fan-made stuff is how widespread/popular/talked-about it is in the fan community. Just my two cents though. --[[User:Fyzixfighter|Fyzixfighter]] 00:00, 18 October 2008 (CEST)

== I suggest you move 'Main Page' to 'Ultramonicon' ==

If you move your 'Main Page' to 'Ultranomicon' then it will improve your search engine optimisation and make the way your main page shows up on Google (and other search engines) look a lot better.

You will need to do a bit of behind the scenes work, to get the navigation menu to update, but I think it will be worth the effort. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 12:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

: We're already the top entry on Google for "Ultronomicon". In what way would our main page look a lot better on Google? — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 06:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

:: I think I see the "problem". Unfortunately, probably not correctable. A search for "ultranomicon" returns this site as the 10th or so listing. Which would probably be about correct, since this site is an Ultronomicon and not an Ultranomicon. If you moved 'Main Page' to the misspelled variant, it could marginally affect Google's ranking, but probably quite little. What might work though, would be if other sites that link to here, left their links titled with the misspelled variation instead of the correct one. Not a good tradeoff, though.--[[User:Slylandro Spambot|Slylandro Spambot]] ([[User talk:Slylandro Spambot|talk]]) 22:07, 13 August 2012 (CEST)

== Is this wiki still alive? ==
Please, comment on this and make me think I'm not the only one frequenting this wiki :)

:It's [[Ultronomicon:To-do|not finished]]. Did you try [[Special:RecentChanges|Recent Changes]]? If you're looking for the broader SC-community, I heartily recommend it; try [http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/ UQMF], [http://www.star-control.com/ PNF] or [http://community.livejournal.com/frungylovers/ Frungy Lovers]. If you're interested in fan projects, there are a few of those floating around. --[[User:Zeracles|Zeracles]] 08:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, the wiki is still alive. I haven't seen any major page overhauls in a long time, but we're still here. --[[User:Shiver|Shiver]] 09:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

==``Hello"==
This is just a friendly heads up that edits on this page merely comprising variants of ``hello" will be regarded as spam and reverted, though we welcome contributions here or anywhere else on the wiki of course. If you just want to hang out with your star control friends, the best places are [http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/ here], [http://www.star-control.com/community/ here] and [http://community.livejournal.com/frungylovers/ here]. Looking forward to seeing you on the forums! --[[User:Zeracles|Zeracles]] 10:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

==Question==
Is there a chance that the game could become an App? Maybe this could make it popular again. --[[Special:Contributions/93.220.42.3|93.220.42.3]] 10:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
:People have talked about is before. See [http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/ the UQM forum]. — [[User:Svdb|SvdB]] 17:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

== "Ur-Quan Masters Universe" (admin needed) ==

The [[Star Control Universe]] link should be changed to [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] after the former was renamed to the latter. However, editing the Main Page is restricted. --[[User:Elestan|Elestan]] ([[User talk:Elestan|talk]]) 17:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Canon

2021-05-14T17:00:11Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe"

'''Canon''' is everything which is generally considered to be part of the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]], as intended by [[Toys For Bob]].

In particular, canon are
*The [[Star Control]] game, including the accompanying manual
*The [[Star Control II]] game, including the accompanying manual and star map.
**Possible [[discrepancies]]:
***In the few cases where Star Control and Star Control II conflict (such as SC1's dates being 500 years later), SC2 takes priority.
***The game generally takes priority over the paper starmap, the manual and the [[Role Playing Resource Guide]].
***When two in-game sources contradict each other, the information supported by the manual generally takes precedence.
*The Star Control II [[Role Playing Resource Guide]] (hints book)
*Anything [[Fred Ford|Fred]] or [[Paul Reiche III|Paul]] said on a public forum or [[IRC chats with Toys For Bob|chat]] (unless it contradicts established canon lore)
*Anything Fred or Paul said in private communications but which was later released to the public (unless it contradicts established canon lore)

Explicitly not canon are
*[[Star Control 3]], including the accompanying manual
*The Star Control novella [[Interbellum]]
*The unreleased 1998 ''StarCon'' game
*Stardock's 2018 ''Star Control: Origins'' game, and any materials related to it
*Any fan works

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

List of races

2021-05-14T16:59:23Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe"

This is a list of all the known races to inhabit the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]], organized according to their amount of interaction in [[Star Control II]].

== Major Races ==
These are the races that you may encounter in [[The Ur-Quan Masters]].
*[[Arilou Lalee'lay]] (a.k.a. [[Arilou]])
*[[Chenjesu]] - in proto-Chmmr form
*[[Chmmr]] - in post-Chenjesu and Mmrnmhrm form
*[[Dnyarri]]
*[[Druuge]]
*[[Humans]]
*[[Ilwrath]]
*[[Melnorme]]
*[[Mmrnmhrm]] - in proto-Chmmr form
*[[Mycon]]
*[[Orz]]
*[[Pkunk]]
*[[Shofixti]]
*[[Slylandro]]
*[[Spathi]]
*[[Supox]]
*[[Syreen]]
*[[Thraddash]]
*[[Umgah]]
*[[Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah]]
*[[Ur-Quan Kzer-Za]]
*[[Utwig]]
*[[VUX]]
*[[Yehat]]
*[[Zoq-Fot-Pik]]

== Minor Races ==
These races are mentioned in [[The Ur-Quan Masters]], but you cannot talk to them.
*[[Algolites]]
*[[Androsynth]]
*[[Burvixese]]
*[[Drall]]
*[[Dramya]]
*[[Faz]]
*[[Gg]]
*[[Keel-Verezy]]
*[[Mael-Num]]
*[[Precursor]]s
*[["They"]]
*[[Taalo]]
*[[Ur-Quan]] (as a single species)
*[[Yuli]]
*[[Yuptar]]
*[[Zebranky]]

See also: [[Race classification]]

[[Category:Lists|Races]]
[[Category:Races| List of races]]

List of characters

2021-05-14T16:58:58Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe"

==[[:Category:Game Characters|Game Characters]]==
These characters actually take part in dialogs in [[The Ur-Quan Masters]].
*[[Ala-la'la]] — Captain ([[Supox]])
*[[The Captain]] ([[Human]])
*[[Chudd]] — Captain ([[Thraddash]])
*[[Content to Hover]] — Speaker ([[Slylandro]])
*[[Fwiffo]] — Captain ([[Spathi]])
*[[Grah]] — Captain (Thraddash)
*[[Greenish]] — Trade Master ([[Melnorme]])
*[[Hayes]] — Starbase Commander (Human)
*[[Katana]] and [[Tanaka]] — Captains ([[Shofixti]])
*[[Korgk]] — battle-slave foreman of Culture Nineteen (Thraddash)
*[[Orz]] (as the entity behind the [[Orz communications|*fingers*]])
*The [[Proctors]] ([[Utwig]])
*[[The Safe Ones]] (Spathi)
*[[Talana]] — Starbase Commander ([[Syreen]])
*The [[Talking Pet]]/Neo-[[Dnyarri]]
*[[YAX]] — Commander ([[VUX]])
*[[ZEX]] — Admiral (VUX)

==[[:Category:Minor Characters|Minor Characters]]==
These characters have a small part in the game, but you never get to talk to them personally.
*[[Awkky Birdy]] ([[Pkunk]])
*[[Braky]] (Pkunk)
*[[Braky Girdy the First]] — Queen of the [[Yehat]] (Pkunk)
*[[Bukowski]] — Lander Science Officer (Human)
*[[Cheep-Guava]] — [[Yehat Rebellion]] leader (Yehat)
*[[Chin]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[Chrupp]] — First officer (Pkunk)
*Dr. [[Chu]] — Starbase xenobiologist (Human)
*[[DAX]] — Sub-commander (VUX)
*[[Flubbo]] — Officer ([[Umgah]])
*[[Fritz]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[High Proctor]] (Utwig)
*[[Hawkins]] — Junior Scientist (Human)
*Ensign [[Hawthorne]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*Private [[Hendryx]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*Ensign [[Hodgkins]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[Jeevo]] — Lander engineer (Human)
*[[Jenkins]] — Lander pilot (Human)
*[[Joyous Lifting]] — Associate of Content to Hover (Slylandro)
*[[Kilgore]] — Xeno-historian (Human)
*[[Kowalski]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[The Liebermann Triplets]] — Lander crew members (Humans)
*[[Luigi]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[Ochre]] — Subordinate of Greenish (Melnorme)
*[[O'Donnell]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*Ensign [[Rigby]] — Lander xenotech (Human)
*Lieutenant [[Robinson]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*[[Sullen Plummet]] — Associate of Content to Hover (Slylandro)
*Officer [[Talbot]] — Lander crew member (Human)
*Ensign [[Witherspoon]] — Lander crew member (Human)

==[[:Category:Backstory Characters|Backstory Characters]]==
These characters are mentioned in the game or the manual, but they contribute to the plot before the start of the game (if they do).
*[[I. Burton]] — Captain (Human)
*[[Chi]] — First Officer (Human)
*[[Chief Groo]] (Utwig)
*[[Diani]] — Officer (Syreen)
*[[Dugee]] — Purity monitor ([[Mycon]])
*[[Faffywaffy]] — Colonel ([[Arilou Lalee'lay]])
*[[Jules Farnsworth]] — Professor (Human)
*[[Gnusko]] — Tactician (Thraddash)
*[[Gussh]] — Birthing nodes attendant (Mycon)
*[[Hsien Ho]] — Bio-technologist (Human)
*[[Jugkah]] — Battlemaster (Thraddash)
*[[Kohr-Ah (Character)|Kohr-Ah]] — Officer (Black [[Ur-Quan]])
*[[Kzer-Za (Character)|Kzer-Za]] — Scientist (Green [[Ur-Quan]])
*[[Jason MacBride]] — Founder of the Homo Deus cult (Human)
*[[Muuhd]] — Master Sergeant (Thraddash)
*[[Ivana Or-Kachov]] — High Provost (Human)
*[[Juan O'Reilly]] — General (Human)
*[[Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah]] [[Primat]] ([[Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah]])
*[[Ur-Quan Kzer-Za]] [[Primat]] ([[Ur-Quan Kzer-Za]])
*[[Pudt]] — Master Sergeant (Thraddash)
*[[Jeffry L. Rand]] — Captain (Human)
*[[Reeunk]] — Maintenance Engineer (Thraddash)
*[[Shloosh]] (Mycon)
*[[Tzzz-Tzer-Tzak]] — Historian ([[Chenjesu]])
*[[Veep-Neep Dynasty]] — Yehat Queens (Yehat)
*[[Yajag]] (Thraddash)

==[[:Category:Legendary Characters|Legendary Characters]]==
These characters are mentioned in the game, but their existence in the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] is limited to legends and mythology (or they are sure not to have ever existed).
*[[Black Spathi Squadron]] (Spathi)
*[[Bosco]]
*[[The Creators]] ([[Precursor]]s)
*[[Daikon]] (Shofixti)
*[[Dogar and Kazon]]
*The [[Grand Master Planet Eaters]]
*[[Jud the Ineffable Vug]]
*[[Killmaster 18]]
*[[Rumdumdaddy]] (Pkunk)
*[[Splib]] (dog)
*[[Tishtushi]]
*[[Ultimate Evil]]
*[[Weeny Wikki Beeki Birdi]] (Pkunk)

==See also==
*[[List of ship captain names]]

[[Category:Lists|Characters]]
[[Category:Characters| ]]

Ultronomicon:Relationship with Wikipedia

2021-05-14T16:55:53Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

{{stub}}
{{safe}}

Differences between the Ultronomicon and [http://wikipedia.org Wikipedia]:
*Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia, which happens to contain information about games set in the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]]. The Ultronomicon is a detailed reference work about everything related to the Ur-Quan Masters Universe.
*Text in Wikipedia is licensed under the [http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Documentation License], while the text in the Ultronomicon is licensed under the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Creative Commons Attribution 2.0] license. They are similar in philosophy, although not exactly the same. The licenses do not allow text from Wikipedia to be used in the Ultronomicon, nor vice versa.

What doesn't belong in the Ultronomicon:
*Information about real-life topics that are not specific to Star Control. So no anatomy of humans, and no description of the evolution of stars.
In some cases it may be appropriate to provide a link to Wikipedia as a reference.

What belongs in the Ultronomicon, but probably not in Wikipedia:
*Game details. While a brief paragraph about a Star Control race may have a place in Wikipedia, it's unlikely they'll appreciate a description of all flagship modules.

What do the Ultronomicon and Wikipedia share:
*They both follow the principle of ''Neutral Point of View'' (NPOV). Text in the Ultronomicon should be objective and consistent with what we know of the Ur-Quan Masters Universe. Fan fiction has no place here, and speculation should be clearly marked as such, either with words as "perhaps", "possibly", "maybe", etc, or, for oft discussed topics, by dedicating an entire section on theories.
*The [http://www.mediawiki.org/ MediaWiki] software is used to power both.

Discrepancies in the Star Control universe

2021-05-14T16:51:31Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

{{incomplete}}

For the most part, the rich and diverse lore of the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] as created by [[Toys for Bob|TFB]] is self-consistent. However, there are certain notable discrepancies within the games and its associated [[canon]]. This page is intended to organize and catalog these inconsistencies. A certain number of discrepancies occur between the PC and 3DO versions of the game; though not listed here, most of these can be found at the [[Version Comparison]].

==Discrepancies between Star Control I & II==
*Historical events
**[[Star Control]] places the relevant events within the 26th and 27th centuries while [[Star Control II]] places most events within the 21st and 22nd centuries.
**The [[Battle in Draco]], mentioned in one of the [[Ur-Quan Slave War#Campaigns|full game campaigns]] and by [[Hayes]], probably did not happen in [[Draconis]], as there were no known battles in that war that involved the [[Thraddash]], who were already members of the [[Hierarchy]] and inhabited that region of space.
**The [[Androsynth]] [[Clone Revolt]] is described completely different in the SC1 manual.

*Name changes
**The [[Spathi]] ship is known as a Discriminator in SC1, and as an [[Eluder]] in SC2.
**The [[Ur-Quan Kzer-Za]] captains are known as Masters in SC1 (except the Genesis version), but as Lords in SC2. SC2 dialogue uses both titles for Ur-Quan captains ([[Talana]] makes a reference to the "Ur-Quan Master Nine").
**In SC1, the plural forms for "Yehat" and "Mycon" are "Yehats" and "Mycons", respectively, in contrast with the same form as the singular in SC2.

*[[The Insult]], according to the Sega version of SC1, was "That is one ugly sucker", while the SC2 manual identifies it as "That’s the ugliest freak-face I’ve ever seen!".

*During a full game in SC1, Life Worlds where Mycon colonies have been established do not become inhospitable to other races (i.e. [[Shattered Worlds]]).

*The full game campaigns in SC1 give the impression that races have more colonies than they have in SC2.

*In the Sega SC1 campaign [[Ur-Quan Slave War#Campaigns|The Nebula]], it is stated that the [[Yehat]] have multiple homeworlds hidden in a nebula, while in SC2 they have a single homeworld, outside of any nebula.

*In SC1, there is a large number of minor [[Precursor]] [[List of Precursor relics|artifacts]] that can be found on various worlds and improve certain statistics of the ship that picks them, while in SC2 there are only major Precursor relics.

==Discrepancies within Star Control II==
*[[Syreen]]
**The manual for the PC version of SC2 states that their homeworld in the [[Arianni]] constellation. The 3DO manual gives the correct location in the [[Copernicus]] constellation.
**The PC manual also calls their homeworld Syrea.

*[[Hayes]]
**[[Jeffry L. Rand]]'s ship is given multiple names: [[Miwok]] in the SC2 manual, or [[Far Voyager]] in Hayes' account.
**The timing of the event is also different: Hayes says that the encounter happened in 2119, while the SC2 manual says the event happened in 2126, which also conflicts with other elements in the Hayes' summary of the [[Ur-Quan Slave War]].
**Only Hayes refers to the Yehat ruling clan as the Veep-Zeeps, every other source identifies them as the [[Veep-Neep]]s.
**Hayes also says that the [[Precursor]]s lived 200,000 years ago, while the manual and the [[Slylandro]] identify their age as 250,000 years ago.

*[[The Words]]
**The [[Pkunk]] give "Hold! Why do you do this! What you are doing is wrong!" as [[the Words]], instead of "Hold! What you are doing to us is wrong! Why do you do this thing?", as [[The Safe Ones]], the [[Arilou]] and [[The Captain]] say them.
**While the [[Role Playing Resource Guide]] correctly identifies the Pkunk, it misidentifies the Melnorme and Spathi ships as sources from which the Words can be learned; it should also list the Arilou and the Safe Ones.

*Typographic errors
**[[Unzervalt]] is Vela I in the game, but called Vela II in the SC2 manual.
**According to the Resource Guide, the [[Faz]] joined the [[Sentient Milieu]] 2000 years ago, long after the first [[Doctrinal Conflict]]; the correct date is 22,000 years ago.
**The paper starmap shows that the galactic spin is clockwise, while in-game it is suggested that it is counter-clockwise, since the Ur-Quan had traveled spinward and arrived in our region in the "northwest".
**The [[List of bio types#Whackin' Bush|Whackin' Bush]] is listed in the Role Playing Resource Guide as being harmless, while it in fact is defined in the game's source code to be moderately dangerous.

*In the 3DO opening video, Unzervalt is not a [[List of planet types#Water|Water World]].

*Unlike every other encounter with them, the first [[Probe]] attack on the [[Tobermoon]] just disabled it, not destroying it and everyone on board.

*The [[Melnorme]] describe the Sentient Milieu as spanning five hundred light-years, though distance in HyperSpace is not measured in light-years, but [[standard HyperSpace distance unit]]s.

*The SC2 manual implies that the Androsynth warped into HyperSpace from near the Asteroid Belt during their [[Clone Revolt]], while all other [[canon]] sources deem hyperspacing from inside a planetary system impossible.

*The Melnorme say that the Ur-Quan spread the [[Dnyarri]] across Milieu space in a month, allowing them to [[mental compulsion|mentally compel]] all the member races, while the Role Playing Resource Guide says that a slave war took place, which lasted for several months and resulted in the eventual enslavement of all Milieu races.

*Thraddash [[Torch]]es can still be built at the [[Earth Starbase]] after taking the [[Aqua Helix]]; Thraddash [[battle group]]s will attack you, but for the rest, the game behaves as if the Alliance is still intact ([[uqmbug:973|bug #973]]).

*The [[Utwig]] claim that the [[Precursor Bomb]] "has the power to destroy entire planetary objects, perhaps even galaxies", but if you ask for more information, they say "From what our scientists can tell, it appears to be a planeteering tool capable of reducing moon-sized objects to particulate dust clouds."

*In the 3DO dialogue [[Fwiffo]] says that the [[Ur-Quan Kzer-Za]] departed "towards the edge of the galaxy" after defeating the [[Alliance]]. This is the exact opposite of the truth, as they actually departed coreward, as is correctly stated in the PC dialogue.

==Simplifications==
Simplifications of features described elsewhere in the game, or found in the real world — either simplified representations of what is actually going on, or simplifications made out of technical limitations, or for putting gameplay above accuracy.

*Physics/astronomy-related simplifications
**Missing features of real objects (e.g. moons smaller than Triton and ring systems in the [[Sol|Solar system]], asteroids, and nebulae). Also, the data of some of the game's Solar system objects, such as their mass or their atmospheric pressure, are sometimes different of the real ones.
**Despite the passage of months and years, the planets and moons around any given star do not move relative to each other. Such motion should be observed irrespective of where the [[Flagship]] drops out of hyperspace, except for systems with only one planet or moon, because of [[wikipedia:Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#Third_law|Kepler's Third Law]].
**All orbits are coplanar with all others, including that of Pluto
**No relativistic effects
**Ships "warp in" to [[Super Melee]] even if they both started in [[TrueSpace]].
**[[Leyland gravity whip]]s are a warped and simplified version of [[wikipedia:Gravitational slingshot|Gravitational slingshots]].
**Planet landings are highly unrealistic (an exaggerated number of dangers, planets too small), and time does not pass while orbiting or exploring a planet. For example, it is possible to completely exterminate the [[Evil Ones]] species from [[Spathiwa]] with a single lander (and store them inside it), in a very short time.
**Super Melee is not to scale, obeys unrealistic physics, contains an exaggerated number of asteroids (and asteroid-planet collisions) and has ships fighting one by one instead of all together.

*When the Flagship is in [[TrueSpace]], [[battle group]]s in [[HyperSpace]] do not move.

*In certain dialogs, some events are described as occurring "''X'' years ago" or "''X'' years in the future". However, this number is the same regardless of what year in the game the conversation occurs. For example, [[Hayes]], when asked about the events after the [[Great War]], will always say that he was transferred to the [[Earth Starbase|Starbase]] eight years ago.

*Enemies are dumb, both in Super Melee and in HyperSpace/TrueSpace.

*There exists the ability to have non-[[Orz]] as [[Nemesis#Secondary|Orz Marine]]s, though it is explicitly stated that vessels of a certain species may only be captained by that species. Also, regardless of whether your crew is entirely non-Human, there will always be a [[Bukowski]], [[Liebermann triplets]] and so on.

*When the Utwig start moving towards their homeworld (retreating after their [[Supox and Utwig offensive against the Kohr-Ah|offensive against the Kohr-Ah]]), ships immediately appear in their star system, saying that they have returned from the battle.

*[[Homeworlds]] are untouched until the corresponding Sphere of Influence disappears.

*If the [[Thraddash]] fleet is off fighting the Kohr-Ah, the [[Ilwrath]] may still [[Ilwrath-Thraddash war|move to their space]] and fighting ensues... with several [[distance unit]]s between the opposing sides.

*The Ilwrath don't notice the absence of the Pkunk after their assimilation into the Yehat culture.

*The [[neo-Dnyarri]] talks about the [[Taalo Shield]] being aboard even if he was rescued from [[Beta Orionis I]] after the Death March (in which case the Shield is not needed, as the creature does not try to use its compulsion powers) ([http://bugs.uqm.stack.nl/show_bug.cgi?id=822 bug #822]).

*After the mutual genocide of the Ilwrath and the Thraddash, although the Ilwrath at their homeworld, [[Alpha Tauri I]], are exterminated, they still can be talked to by impersonating [[Dogar and Kazon]] with a HyperWave Caster (with the same dialogue options as during the [[Ilwrath-Thraddash war]]) ([http://bugs.uqm.stack.nl/show_bug.cgi?id=850 bug #850]).

*[[Sphere of Influence|Spheres of Influence]] are simplified representations of a species' territory or fleet.

*Important devices aboard [[The Flagship]] (such as the [[Sun Device]], the [[QuasiSpace Portal Spawner]] or [[Deep Child Egg Case Fragments]]) are not taken from The Flagship before it is sent against the [[Sa-Matra]].

==Apparent discrepancies within Star Control II==
Discrepancies which may have a reason behind them.

*The [[Ur-Quan Kohr-Ah|Kohr-Ah]] wipe out the Arilou [[Sphere of Influence]], but their homeworld is untouched. (It is possible that they have just been forced to retreat entirely to [[QuasiSpace]])

*[[Melnorme]] Trade Master [[Greenish]] is not the same captain in combat if you choose to be hostile the first time. (It is possible that piloting the ship is not within a Trade Master's duties)

*Normally [[VUX]] [[Intruder]]s warp into the combat zone right next to the enemy ship, but in the SC2 full game this does not seem to apply. (It is possible that [[The Flagship]]'s massiveness impedes warping so close to it, or that the upkeep of the warping systems is very large and they keep them for wartime)

*[[Syra|Beta Copernicus I]], as a [[Shattered World]], doesn't seem to match [[Talana]]'s descriptions: it has no atmosphere (no sulfur clouds), is not very hot (only 7 degrees centigrade) and its day is not fifty percent longer than Earth's as in the 3DO version dialogue, but actually somewhat shorter, as in the PC version dialogue. (It is possible that during the time passed since the shattering, these variables have greatly changed)

*[[Shattered World]]s (except [[Epsilon Scorpii I]] and [[Beta Brahe I]]) are uninhabited by Mycon in-game, and are (including the two inhabited ones) anyway too cold (100 degrees centigrade or even 7 degrees in the case of Syra) for Mycon, who are described as "thriving in temperatures close to the melting point of lead". (It is possible that they live underground, where the temperature is not indicated, or that the temperature in certain locations is maintained at a high enough level, either through natural or artificial means. It is also possible that they do not shatter worlds for the purpose of living there)

*When impersonating [[Dogar and Kazon]], you have the option to command the Ilwrath to deform certain words, but they don't do this except when confirming the commandment. (It is possible that they are simply focused on the other orders, forgetting these).

*[[Slave-shield]]ed worlds ([[Gaia]], [[Spathiwa]] and [[Unzervalt]]) are not cleansed by the Kohr-Ah during their [[Death March]]. (It is possible that they save those for the end, exterminating the more dangerous species first).

*Star Control II's manual claims that in 1940, ten years after the first radio broadcasts on Earth, these radio broadcasts were intercepted by the Ur-Quan Kzer-Za. However, traveling with the speed of light, these radio waves could not have reached the Ur-Quan so quickly. It is possible that radio waves leak into HyperSpace, but that they are not as efficient for HyperSpace communications as [[HyperWave]], the usual means of communicating in HyperSpace, is. Another possibility is that the signals were intercepted by an Ur-Quan Kzer-Za vessel on a reconnaissance mission.

*Two reasons are given for the [[Fury#Secondary|insults]] used by a [[Pkunk]] [[Fury]]'s captain. The manual says that the Fury's secondary recharges the ship's batteries. The Pkunk say that the insults, in fact, throw them into a frenzy, lest their peaceful nature forbids them from attacking the enemy ship. (It is possible that both are true — the psychic energy generated is somehow converted to electrical energy and fed to the batteries).

==Differences with the real world==
*The [[List of star types#Color classification|star color]] ladder is not scientifically accurate (see [[wikipedia:Stellar classification#Harvard spectral classification|here]]).

*[[wikipedia:Planetary system|Planetary systems]] are misnamed in-game "[[wikipedia:Star system|star systems]]".

*[[wikipedia:Agoraphobia|Agoraphobia]] is misunderstood as a fear of open places (see [[Umgah]]), while in reality it is a fear of leaving one's "safety zone".

*"Redux" (as in "[[List of planet types#Redux (Reduction)|Redux World]]") is misunderstood as being synonymous to "reduction", while it means instead "brought back". ([http://bugs.uqm.stack.nl/show_bug.cgi?id=994 bug #994])

*"[[wikipedia:Sentience|Sentience]]" is misunderstood as being synonymous with "[[wikipedia:Sapience|sapience]]".

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]
[[Category:Trivia]]

Hoaxes and Rumours FAQ

2021-05-14T16:49:13Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

==Does the [[Black Spathi Squadron]] exist?==
:We don't know for sure whether it exists in the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]], but it doesn't exist in the Star Control II game.
:The only reference to a Black Spathi Squadron is the rumour told to you by [[Hayes|Starbase Commander Hayes]]. A rumour which he doesn't believe himself. A [http://web.archive.org/web/20051203152329/http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/bss/history.shtml webpage] about the Black Spathi Squadron exists in The [[Pages of Now and Forever]], but the page is a joke and the images it contains are doctored.

==What's this about [[DataPlate]]s?==
: As with the cloaking device, the DataPlates were an abandoned idea.
:{{PaulMail}}
::Regarding the mysterious, purple thingy -- that's a 'DataPlate' which was a class of game item that we ended up not using. The idea was that you could buy, find and sell ideas, concepts and technology in this abstract form. We did the art and included it in the game, but later on we changed the items to be more interesting, more tangible things like the [[Aqua Helix]] and [[Wimbli's Trident|Wimbly's Trident]] [''sic''].
:The source code to the game, as it was released to the public, contains some leftover code for the DataPlates.
:Also three images for DataPlates are included (they are called miscdata.91.png, miscdata.92.png, and miscdata.93.png in [[The Ur-Quan Masters]]).

==I hear there's some way to get a cloaking device for the [[The Flagship]]. Where can I find it?==
:There's no such thing.
:The box in which the original [[Star Control II]] came had a screenshot of an earlier version of the game on the back, in which a [[Cloaking device|cloaking device]] could be seen in the devices menu.
:This led to rumors on [http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~starcontrol/board/YaBB.pl the Star Control boards] of [http://www.star-control.com/ the Pages of Now and Forever] that the released Star Control II still contained a cloaking device somewhere. Angelfish, one of the regulars on that board, eventually claimed to have found it, and went as far as to mock up some screen shots to "prove" it. [http://web.archive.org/web/20000416005343/http%3A//www.cam.org/~lafranc/sc4board/messages/5029.html His posting] can be found on [http://web.archive.org/ the WayBack machine], and [http://www.star-control.com/images/faq/cloak.gif the fake screen shots] on the Pages of Now and Forever.
:While [[Toys For Bob]] eventually denied the existence of a cloaking device for the Precursor ship, the hoax was for some time still frequently played on newcomers to Star Control and the [http://uqm.stack.nl/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl old The Ur-Quan Masters boards].
:{{FredMail}}
::O.K., O.K. I must admit the conversation threads relating to the cloaking device have been the most amusing to someone who knows the truth and after six years I don't think it will diminish the game to put this matter to rest. No, there is no cloaking device. Yes, there was going to be one, but we couldn't figure out a way, given the limitations of two players fighting on the same screen, to make it functionally better/more interesting than the [[Ilwrath]]'s.
:A trace of the cloaking device can be found in the Star Control code which was released to the public, in the form of a definition of an (unused) flag named "FLAGSHIP_CLOAKED".

[[Category:FAQs]]
[[Category:Trivia]]

Precursor

2021-05-14T16:48:44Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

:''This article is about the Precursor race. For information on the remixing project, see [[Precursors Remixing Team]].

The '''Precursors''' (also referred to as the '''Shaggy Ones''' by the [[Slylandro]]) were an ancient, highly advanced species and the earliest known race to extensively explore the known [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe|universe]]. Unfortunately, the actual name of the race has been lost in antiquity. The Precursors moved quickly to become masters of the galaxy, leaving [[List of Precursor relics|evidence]] of their presence virtually everywhere. The height of Precursor culture seems to have been approximately 250,000 Earth years ago.{{ref|1}} Despite their widespread presence, it appears that the Precursors vanished from the galactic scene quite suddenly, leaving no indication as to why. From the recovered Precursor artifacts, it has been determined that as a species they were a race of "shaggy giants," likely 5-8 meters tall and twice as wide, and seemingly not bipedal. Commander [[Hayes]] suggests that they may have looked similar to brontosaurs or elephants, and the [[Star Control II]] manual states, referring to [[ The Flagship]], that "Levers were almost impossible to move, three people were required to actuate a single switch, and the chairs, beds and other furnishings were better suited for a wooly mammoth than a human."{{ref|2}}

The only species that has been confirmed to have first-hand contact is the Slylandro. However, due to the lack of writing implements, much of their knowledge of the Precursors has been lost over the passing time. The Slylandro do mention that prior to the mysterious exodus, the Precursors were frantically searching for something and were obviously ''worried'' over the situation. Their last transmission seemed to indicate that the Precursors had found the answer they were searching for, and that the arrangement of Rainbow Worlds would give a hint as to where they went — the [[Galactic Core]].

The [[Spathi]], however, believe that the Precursors are not really gone, but that "they simply came to their senses one day and used their superior technology to invent some kind of perfect invisibility shield and remain alive and happy to this day". Obviously, the Spathi hope to rediscover this secret someday and disappear into similar obscurity.

While the species itself appears to be long gone, evidence of their existence still remains. Various artifacts of Precursor origin have been discovered on any number of worlds. The largest [[:Category:Precursor Technology|artifacts]] known to date are the [[Sa-Matra]] battle platform discovered by the [[Ur-Quan]], the Precursor factory discovered underneath the surface of Vela I ([[Unzervalt]]), and the 10 [[Rainbow Worlds]] found throughout this region of space.

==Notes and references==
{{note|1}}''Several dates have been given for the Precursors' place in galactic history. The [[Star Control]] manual (pg. 37) places them approximately 300,000 years ago. The [[Star Control II]] PC manual (pg. 49) states that [[The Flagship]] was designed 250,000 years ago. Commander [[Hayes]] says that they suddenly appeared about 200,000 years ago, disappearing after 3,000 years in less than a decade. The [[Slylandro]] had interactions with them about 41-39 Drahn ago (about 250,000-265,000 Earth years ago).''
{{note|2}}''[[Star Control II]] manual, pg. 20 (PC)''

[[Category:Races]]
[[Category:Precursor]]

TimeWarp

2021-05-14T16:47:24Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

[[Image:Tw-light screenshot.JPG|right|thumb|TimeWarp contains all of the classic ships along with new ones such as the Alary Battlecruiser.]]
TimeWarp is a fan-made project based on the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] and game dynamics. The developers were disappointed with [[Star Control 3]] and want to create a "true sequel" to the epic [[Star Control II]]. The original TimeWarp project has spawned several forks.

==TimeWarp==
This project was created in 1998 by The Fly and aimed at creating a sequel to the Star Control 2 adventure game. The melee portion of the game was created early in the existence of the project. Due to very slow plot development and the departure of coders, the project was not able to progress beyond melee. Over time, focus shifted to the [[melee]] aspect of the game, and currently contains an enormous selection of ships. The classic ships from all three [[Star Control]] games are coupled with a wealth of fan-made vessels. It is even possible to fight in the [[Planet Lander|planet lander]].

Current development aims at maintenance of the Timewarp code (bug fixing), tweaking of ships, and occasionally the addition of a new ship.

To learn more about the TimeWarp project, visit http://timewarp.sourceforge.net/.

===Public Plot Initiative===
The public plot initiative is an initiative for and by the public, which develops a plot set in the Star Control universe, using ideas and suggestions that are posted on the [http://timewarp.sourceforge.net/forum/index.php Timewarp forums].

==TW-Light==
TW-Light is a TimeWarp fork created by Yurand and Youbstrd! in 2004, and intends to produce a more clean and stable codebase. It also has a revised Melee mode, which features a more selective roster of ships.
TW-Light is more actively developed than the original TimeWarp.

The TW-Light homepage is located at http://tw-light.berlios.de/. The plot of the game can be downloaded [ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/tw-light/twplot.zip here]. {{spoilerlink}}

===Legacies===
Legacies is the first-person "story mode" component of TW-Light. Work on this story has halted due to lack of developers; the Legacies team is on the lookout for new writers and artists.

==TWX==
Another fork of TimeWarp, this project was created in 2003 after some dissent in the Timewarp team, by Tau, GeomanNL and UAF. Originally it aimed at creating an adventure in the Star Control Universe, but after some setbacks, the project aims at more modest goals which will be completed in turn - namely, (1) a playable mission set, (2) a simple real-time-strategy, and (3) an adventure. These goals accompany the completion of different critical parts of the code.

The TWX project is located at http://twx.sourceforge.net/

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Star Control 3

2021-05-14T16:46:46Z

Elestan: Tense corrections

:''This article discusses only the real-life events surrounding the release of the game, and does not cover the details about the game, such as the story or races.''

'''Star Control 3''', made by [[Legend Entertainment]] for [[Accolade]], was supposed to be the successor to [[Star Control II]]. However, many fans of the series were disappointed by the game: it featured fewer and less distinct ships and races, less diverse modes of gameplay, and a less interesting story that conflicted with the established facts of the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] and the ending of SC2. SC3 seemed to lack the creativity and the fun feel of the original, instead offering "features" that looked good on paper, but didn't make the game better.

Many fans pin this failure on the fact that the game was not made by [[Toys For Bob]], the creators of [[Star Control]] and Star Control II. Some perceive Accolade as trying to capitalize on the ''Star Control'' name (for which they owned the [[Star Control Trademark|trademark]]) by selling an inferior game, while some think that Accolade didn't have the talent to make a game as good as SC2.

Regardless of the reason, most fans of Toys For Bob and SC2, including SC2's developers,{{ref|1}} dismiss SC3 as being "untrue" to the series (the acronym "SCNot3" is often used on the discussion boards, referring to the fact that SC3 is not a sequel to SC2 as the name would imply), and feel that the story and races of SC3 should be ignored and a "true" sequel should be created. One such attempt is [[TimeWarp]], currently in development.

Star Control 4 (aka StarCon) was reportedly in development by [[Infogrames]] (who purchased Accolade and the Star Control trademark) as a sequel to Star Control 3, but it appears as if development was halted.

In the early 2000s, Toys for Bob announced that they wanted their next game to be a Star Control game, a true [[Star Control sequel|sequel]] to Star Control II. They're asking for support from the public to convince Activision, of which they are a development studio. A petition form was placed [http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/petition.php here], but the petition was unsuccessful.

See also: [[Canon]]

==Notes and references==
{{note|1}}{{PaulMail}}
::I like they folks at Legend very much. They took on SC3 largely because they liked SC I & II, so clearly they have excellent taste! Unfortunately, I think that the design for SC3 tried to cover too many bases, and as a result lacked focus and punch.
:{{PaulMail}}
::No, we'd do a new and different SC3. I love the folks at Legend, and I appreciate all the work they did, but to take SC into the future we'd need to undo some of the plot stuff SC3 included.
:{{FredMail}}
::We have never considered Accolade evil. Just a little slow and unimaginative.
:{{FredMail}}
::Paul played it much more extensively than I did. But I can say that when you've planned to do a sequel of something you created and someone else does it first and differently, it leaves a funny taste in your mouth.

==External links==
* [https://www.gog.com/game/star_control_iii Star Control 3] on GOG.com
* [http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/star-control-3/ Hardcore Gaming Retrospective]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Star Control 3

2021-05-14T16:42:21Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

:''This article discusses only the real-life events surrounding the release of the game, and does not cover the details about the game, such as the story or races.''

'''Star Control 3''', made by [[Legend Entertainment]] for [[Accolade]], was supposed to be the successor to [[Star Control II]]. However, many fans of the series were disappointed by the game: it featured fewer and less distinct ships and races, less diverse modes of gameplay, and a less interesting story that conflicted with the established facts of the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] and the ending of SC2. SC3 seemed to lack the creativity and the fun feel of the original, instead offering "features" that looked good on paper, but didn't make the game better.

Many fans pin this failure on the fact that the game was not made by [[Toys For Bob]], the creators of [[Star Control]] and Star Control II. Some perceive Accolade as trying to capitalize on the ''Star Control'' name (for which they own the [[Star Control Trademark|trademark]]) by selling an inferior game, while some think that Accolade didn't have the talent to make a game as good as SC2.

Regardless of the reason, most fans of Toys For Bob and SC2, including SC2's developers,{{ref|1}} dismiss SC3 as being "untrue" to the series (the acronym "SCNot3" is often used on the discussion boards, referring to the fact that SC3 is not a sequel to SC2 as the name would imply), and feel that the story and races of SC3 should be ignored and a "true" sequel should be created. One such attempt is [[TimeWarp]], currently in development.

Star Control 4 (aka StarCon) was reportedly in development by [[Infogrames]] (who purchased Accolade and the Star Control trademark) as a sequel to Star Control 3, but it appears as if development was halted.

Recently Toys for Bob have announced that they want their next game to be a Star Control game, a true [[Star Control sequel|sequel]] to Star Control II. They're asking for support from the public to convince Activision, of which they are a development studio. A petition site can be found [http://sc2.sourceforge.net/petition/petition.php here].

See also: [[Canon]]

==Notes and references==
{{note|1}}{{PaulMail}}
::I like they folks at Legend very much. They took on SC3 largely because they liked SC I & II, so clearly they have excellent taste! Unfortunately, I think that the design for SC3 tried to cover too many bases, and as a result lacked focus and punch.
:{{PaulMail}}
::No, we'd do a new and different SC3. I love the folks at Legend, and I appreciate all the work they did, but to take SC into the future we'd need to undo some of the plot stuff SC3 included.
:{{FredMail}}
::We have never considered Accolade evil. Just a little slow and unimaginative.
:{{FredMail}}
::Paul played it much more extensively than I did. But I can say that when you've planned to do a sequel of something you created and someone else does it first and differently, it leaves a funny taste in your mouth.

==External links==
* [https://www.gog.com/game/star_control_iii Star Control 3] on GOG.com
* [http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/star-control-3/ Hardcore Gaming Retrospective]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Category:Science and technology

2021-05-14T16:40:54Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

These articles describe various aspects of science and technology as it pertains to the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]].

Category:Organizations

2021-05-14T16:40:36Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

These articles describe organizations within the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]].

The major organizations are the [[Alliance of Free Stars]], the [[New Alliance of Free Stars]], and the [[Ur-Quan Hierarchy]].

Category:Historical events

2021-05-14T16:40:15Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

These articles describe specific, named events within the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]].

Template:Groups

2021-05-14T16:39:53Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

{| style="margin:0 auto;" align=center width=80% class="toccolours" cellspacing=0
|align=center style="background:#ccccff;"|
'''[[List of races|Alien Races]] in the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] - notable [[:Category:Organizations|groups]]'''
|-
|align=center colspan=2 | '''[[Sentient Milieu]]''': [[Drall]] - [[Mael-Num]] - [[Taalo]] - [[Yuli]] - [[Yuptar]] - [[Faz]] - [[Ur-Quan]]
|-
|align=center colspan=2 | '''[[Ur-Quan Hierarchy]]''': [[Battle Thrall]]s: [[Thraddash]] - [[Umgah]] - [[Ilwrath]] - [[Spathi]] - [[Androsynth]] - [[VUX]] - [[Mycon]] - [[Yehat]]
|-
|align=center colspan=2 | [[Fallow Slave]]s: [[Faz]] - [[Chenjesu]] - [[Mmrnmhrm]] - [[Human]] - [[Syreen]]
|-
|align=center colspan=2 | '''[[Alliance of Free Stars]]''': [[Chenjesu]] - [[Mmrnmhrm]] - [[Yehat]] - [[Shofixti]] - [[Human]] - [[Arilou]] - [[Syreen]]
|}
<noinclude>
This is just an attempt to create something like what I've seen on some wikipedia articles. I'm still not sure how useful something like this would be - in other words, I don't know if this would help more than just take up space when readers can just go to a list or category. This would be placed at the bottom of the page and allow easier navigation to related races (rather than jumping to the "Races" category and then to an article). The "other"/unaffiliated/optional allied races are a bit of a problem...
</noinclude>

Category:In-game events

2021-05-14T16:39:05Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

These articles describe events that can occur in the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]] within the time period covered by [[Star Control II]].

[[Category:Historical events]]

Paranormal phenomena

2021-05-14T16:38:22Z

Elestan: Renaming links ("Star Control Universe" -> "Ur-Quan Masters Universe")

This page describes actual paranormal phenomena apparently occurring in the [[Star Control]] universe.

==Paranormal phenomena==
===Psychic compulsion===
'''Psychic''' or '''mental compulsion''' is the ability to control and read the minds of others. The [[Chmmr]] intimate that most races that naturally possess this ability are inimical in nature. Psychic compulsion appears in at least two instances within the [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]].

The classic example of a race with this innate ability is the [[Dnyarri]]. Just as the Chmmr profile suggests, the Dnyarri were a very hostile and pernicioius race, as is evident of their take-over of the [[Sentient Milieu]]. The only race known to be able to resist this compulsion were the [[Taalo]], due to their rock-like physiology. Their [[Taalo Shield]] bestowed this immunity upon other races too, and proves to be most valuable in containing the [[neo-Dnyarri]], thus helping greatly in the liberation of this region of space from the [[Ur-Quan]].

Dnyarri psychic compulsion has a limited range, but its effects may last longer than the effective psychic contact with the compulsive being, as evidenced by the Umgah's and [[The Captain]]'s compulsion. A weakness in the Dnyarri's compulsion powers is that, should the target die while being compelled, the Dnyarri will be dragged down to death as well, and that the Dnyarri cannot compel beings experiencing intense pain; this led to their eventual downfall in the face of the Ur-Quan [[Ur-Quan#Slave revolt|slave revolt]], the latter using [[Excruciator (Ur-Quan)|Excruciator]]s to shield themselves from the Dnyarri.

Apparently, the subjective experience of a being under mental compulsion is somewhat similar to a [[wikipedia:Trance|trance]]; [[The Captain]]'s compulsion (when he is forced to seek death at the hands of his enemies) is reportedly felt as if "the screen went dark", "like [he] fell asleep, or was unconscious", yet he is still able to feel that somebody else is in control of his mind and body. The Umgah are lucid enough to understand that the neo-Dnyarri has a "Big Plan", although they never learn any details except that it involves revenge against the Ur-Quan, the neo-Dnyarri being extremely angry with them. Beings under compulsion also intone words slowly and rhythmically, speaking in simple sentences, mostly imperatives addressed to the speaker himself; in addition, the Umgah's sense of humor is greatly diminished while under compulsion. The degree of control that the Dnyarri has on any given slave is unknown, though in one instance, when asked to tell a joke, a compelled Umgah intones "WHEN. IS. A. SLAVE. NOT. A. SLAVE. ANSWER. WHEN. HE. IS. A. SLAVE. MASTER." — a sentence easily attributable to the Dnyarri.

The [[Syreen]], to some extent, are capable of psychic compulsion.{{ref|1}} Syreen use psionic amplifiers to coerce a hodge-podge of alien races to serve aboard [[Penetrator]]s. An extension of this technology is the [[Penetrator#Secondary|Syreen Song]], a hypnosis field emitted by the ribbed structure of the ships hull, which when used in combat allows the Penetrator to steal its opponent's crew.

Both the [[Pkunk]] and [[Utwig]] (through the [[Ultron]]) imply that they possess some sort of psychic ability that allows them to influence people and events. However, there has been no definitive evidence proving either of these claims.

===Clairvoyance===
'''Clairvoyance''' is the ability to perceive, consciously or unconsciously, contemporary events and places by other means than the scientifically proven senses.''
*Some [[Human]]s with high [[#Esper rating|esper ratings]]
*[[Pkunk]] (unconfirmed)
*[[Utwig]] (through the employment of the [[Ultron]]; unconfirmed)

===Precognition===
'''Precognition''' is the ability to perceive, consciously or unconsciously, the future or possible futures.
*[[Pkunk]] (unconfirmed)
*[[Utwig]] (through the employment of the [[Ultron]]; unconfirmed)
*[[Tzo Crystal]]s (according to the Melnorme)
*The [[MetaChron]] (predicts only its own destruction)

===Telepathy===
'''Telepathy''' is the ability to exchange information by the use of other senses than the standard ones.
*[[Arilou]]
*[[Pkunk]] (unconfirmed)
*Talented [[Zoq]] Seers can detect very powerful psionic emanations

===Talking to the dead===
*Pkunk (unconfirmed)

===Auto-Resurrection===
*Pkunk ([[Fury]])

==Paranormal concepts==
===Esper rating===
An '''esper rating''' or '''esper potential''' appears to be a measure of a person's psionic abilities. Commander [[Hayes]] mentions esper ratings twice. One time is when the [[Pkunk]] are absorbed by the [[Yehat]]. He says that certain crew members with high esper ratings fell unconscious, overcome by a feeling that something very wrong had happened. Another time he mentions it is when [[The Captain]] brings the [[Taalo Shield]] in for study. Hayes claims that whenever you put a charge anywhere through the shield, all crewmen with high esper potentials get a bad headache, and "all evidence of [[#Psychon|psychon]] interaction is flatlined.". Besides the six people on the [[Earth Starbase]] who react to the Pkunk disappearance, Ensigns [[Hodgkins]] and [[Witherspoon]], who reacted to the Taalo Shield, are the only crew members specifically identified as having noticeable esper ratings.
:''See also: Wikipedia article for [[wikipedia:esper|esper]]''

===Psychon===
In the Star Control universe, a psychon appears to be a particle responsible for paranormal phenomena, since the [[Taalo Shield]] flatlines all psychon interaction nearby if an electric current is fed into it. It may be the same psychon from Sir John Eccles' psychon theory that he described in ''How the Self Controls Its Brain''.

==Notes and references==
{{note|1}}{{IRC2007}}
::23:11 <@Meep-Eep> < Mormont> How strong is the Syreen song compared to a Dnyarri?
::23:13 <+PR3> Syreen song = glass of white wine vs. Dynarri compulsion = intravenous lab alcohol+horse tranquilizer

[[Category:Lists]]
[[Category:Science and technology]]

Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe

2021-05-14T16:33:58Z

Elestan: Done

Based on the [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is outcome of the lawsuit], specifically the statement that "Stardock will create new games in the Star Control franchise. Paul & Fred will create new games in the Ur-Quan Masters franchise.", I believe that this page should be moved to "Ur-Quan Masters Universe", and any references changed accordingly. A redirect can be maintained. Are there any objections? --[[User:Elestan|Elestan]] ([[User talk:Elestan|talk]]) 16:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, the move is complete. --[[User:Elestan|Elestan]] ([[User talk:Elestan|talk]]) 16:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Star Control Universe

2021-05-14T16:32:01Z

Elestan: Elestan moved page Talk:Star Control Universe to Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe: Use the proper name for the Reiche and Ford canon universe.

#REDIRECT [[Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe]]

Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe

2021-05-14T16:32:01Z

Elestan: Elestan moved page Talk:Star Control Universe to Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe: Use the proper name for the Reiche and Ford canon universe.

Star Control Universe

2021-05-14T16:32:01Z

Elestan: Elestan moved page Star Control Universe to Ur-Quan Masters Universe: Use the proper name for the Reiche and Ford canon universe.

#REDIRECT [[Ur-Quan Masters Universe]]

Ur-Quan Masters Universe

2021-05-14T16:32:01Z

Elestan: Elestan moved page Star Control Universe to Ur-Quan Masters Universe: Use the proper name for the Reiche and Ford canon universe.

{{stub}}

*[[List of Characters]]
*[[List of Races]]
*[[List of Ships]]
*[[List of Homeworlds]]
*[[List of Alien Artifacts]]
*[[List of Flagship Modules]]
*[[List of star types]], [[List of planet types]], [[List of mineral types]], [[List of bio types]]
*[[Sentient Milieu]], [[Alliance of Free Stars]], [[Ur-Quan Hierarchy]]
*[[Timeline]]
*[[Ur-Quan Slave War]], Events of [[Star Control II]]
*[[TrueSpace]], [[HyperSpace]], [[QuasiSpace]]
*Interesting [[Star Control II facts]]
*[[Walkthrough]]

[[Category:Lists]]

Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe

2021-05-11T16:54:23Z

Elestan: References too

Talk:Ur-Quan Masters Universe

2021-05-11T16:51:02Z

Elestan: Move proposal

Based on the [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is outcome of the lawsuit], specifically the statement that "Stardock will create new games in the Star Control franchise. Paul & Fred will create new games in the Ur-Quan Masters franchise.", I believe that this page should be moved to "Ur-Quan Masters Universe". A redirect can be maintained. Are there any objections? --[[User:Elestan|Elestan]] ([[User talk:Elestan|talk]]) 16:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2021-02-19T14:23:58Z

Elestan: /* Abandoned Trademarks */ Reformat to remove redundant information

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violated copyright, and whether their trademark applications would have succeeded
* How the licensing agreement might have affected these issues, and whether that agreement was still valid during litigation
* Whether the parties had misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] A settlement conference was held on May 14, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], but the case was not settled until over a year later, on June 7, 2019.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.135.0.pdf]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/e/e2/Stardock_Proposed_Settlement.pdf Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018] (Mirror)

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]

==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Fwiffo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Druuge]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chmmr]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ghosts of the Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Precursors]" (Intent by Paul Reiche III) (Was blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch The Ur-Quan Masters]" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.) (No use demonstrated)
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch SUPER-MELEE]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Orz]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Melnorme]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch VUX]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Yehat]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Taalo]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Dnyarri]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pkunk]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Chenjesu]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Spathi]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ur-Quan]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Arilou]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Ilwrath]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Syreen]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Androsynth]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Crimson Corporation]" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
* "[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Frungy Games]" (Use by Paul Reiche III) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2020-04-02T14:22:41Z

Elestan: /* Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations */ Frungy trademarks abandoned

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violated copyright, and whether their trademark applications would have succeeded
* How the licensing agreement might have affected these issues, and whether that agreement was still valid during litigation
* Whether the parties had misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] A settlement conference was held on May 14, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], but the case was not settled until over a year later, on June 7, 2019.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.135.0.pdf]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]

==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
* (Abandoned): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-12-16T03:12:08Z

Elestan: /* Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations */ Ur-Quan Masters Registered

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions and the release of Star Control: Origins: 2017-2019 ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files a complaint for trademark infringement against Reiche and Ford. The original complaint only asked for relief for the allegedly misleading use of the Star Control mark by Reiche and Ford, but already claimed that Reiche and Ford were not the creators of Star Control, and asserted that Stardock was the sole owner of the copyright to Star Control 3.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock, where they, among other things, accuse Stardock of copyright infringement and ask for the cancellation of the Star Control trademark registration, a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford are the owners of the Star Control I and II copyrights, and an injunction against the distribution of the classic Star Control games by Stardock. Reiche and Ford also claim ownership of The Ur-Quan Masters trademark.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]
* '''2018-03-12''': Stardock sends Reiche and Ford a settlement offer that would require them to surrender their SC1 and SC2 copyrights to Stardock, stop challenging Stardock's claims to any Star Control trademarks, and refrain from working on a game in the same genre for five years. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r]
* '''2018-03-15''': Stardock files its first amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it also claims ownership of "The Ur-Quan Masters" trademark and other "Accolade marks".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf]
* '''2018-03-22''': Reiche and Ford send Stardock a settlement offer that would require both sides to refrain from infringing on each other's trademarks and copyrights, and Stardock to abandon its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, Ghosts of the Precursors, and Star Control II alien name trademarks, as well as release the source code for Star Control I and III to the public. The offer is rejected.[https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer]
* '''2018-07-16''': Reiche and Ford file an amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they claim that Stardock's applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, Ghosts of the Precursors, and alien name trademarks are fraudulent.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf]
* '''2018-07-16''': Stardock files its second amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks to invalidate any Star Control copyrights claimed by Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf]
* '''2018-08-17''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to Valve against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf]
* '''2018-08-21''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA takedown notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta and the Arilou and Chenjesu content packs.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]
* '''2018-09-07''': Stardock files a motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford to stop them from sending any more DMCA notices against Star Control: Origins.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf]
* '''2018-09-20''': Stardock releases Star Control: Origins.
* '''2018-10-15''': Reiche and Ford file a second amended counterclaim against Stardock, where, in addition to their previous claims, they sue GOG and Valve for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement, and GOG for fraud and breach of contract.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf]
* '''2018-10-15''': Stardock files a third amended complaint against Reiche and Ford, where, in addition to its previous claims, it asks for a declaratory judgment that Reiche and Ford have never owned any Star Control copyrights or trademarks, and claims ownership of all Star Control II alien names.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-27''': Stardock's motion for a restraining order against Reiche and Ford's DMCA notices is denied.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf]
* '''2018-12-28''': Reiche and Ford send a DMCA notice to GOG against Star Control: Origins. A similar notice is sent to Valve, and the game is briefly taken down.[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]
* '''2019-05-24''': All parties file a stipulation where they first mention that the parties have been engaging in settlement talks for the past two weeks, and are "close to reaching agreement to settle this matter in its
entirety".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.129.0.pdf]
* '''2019-06-07''': Settlement is reached by all parties. All complaints and counterclaims are dismissed with prejudice in their entirety. Stardock abandons its applications for The Ur-Quan Masters, Super-Melee, and alien name trademarks.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.136.0_1.pdf]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Trademarks In Process ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
* 2024-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered])

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-08-29T12:59:34Z

Elestan: /* Trademarks In Process */ "Ur-Quan Masters" published.

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II (program code) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters (script and audiovisual material) - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Trademarks In Process ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** 2019-11-12: "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])

==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-08-01T16:01:38Z

Elestan: /* Registered Trademarks */

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Trademarks In Process ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Publishing): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pub. Pending])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
==== Registered Trademarks ====
* 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
* 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
* 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-08-01T16:00:54Z

Elestan: /* Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations */

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Copyrights ====
* [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Trademarks In Process ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Publishing): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pub. Pending])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
==== Registered Trademarks ====
** 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.
==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-08-01T15:58:13Z

Elestan: /* Active */ Update statuses of remaining marks

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== In Process ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Publishing): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Pub. Pending])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2020-01-23: "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Awaiting SOU]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
==== Registered ====
** 2024-07-16: "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2024-07-30: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-07-02T05:00:48Z

Elestan: /* Abandoned Trademarks */ Final status.

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Active ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Published): "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** (Published): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Examining): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Under Examination])
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition Sustained]) (Was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition Sustained])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Extension])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Extension])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-07-02T04:55:17Z

Elestan: /* Active */ UQM re-activated

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Active ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Published): "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** (Published): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Examining): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Under Examination])
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained, was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Pending])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-06-24T14:29:26Z

Elestan: /* Active */ Reorder

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Active ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Published): "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** (Published): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Suspended): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Under Examination]) (Blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "The Ur-Quan Masters"], which was suspended pending litigation but is now abandoned)
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained, was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Pending])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-06-24T14:28:38Z

Elestan: /* Active */ New SC TM Opposition terminated.

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Active ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Published): "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Terminated])
** (Suspended): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Under Examination]) (Blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "The Ur-Quan Masters"], which was suspended pending litigation but is now abandoned)
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained, was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Pending])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]

Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford

2019-06-19T01:05:09Z

Elestan: /* Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations */ Alien race trademark abandoned

This article describes the litigation that took place between December 8, 2017 and June 7, 2019 between the makers of '''''Star Control: Origins''''' (SC:O) and the makers of '''''Ghosts of the Precursors''''' (GOTP). SC:O was published and developed by Stardock Systems, Inc., who purchased several ''Star Control'' intellectual property assets from Atari at bankruptcy. GOTP was announced by [[Paul Reiche III]] and [[Fred Ford]], the designers of the first two ''Star Control'' games with ''Star Control'' intellectual property of their own. Both parties claimed that the other had violated their intellectual property rights.
This article summarizes the relevant law, events, evidence, and disputes. This includes:

* Whether Stardock violated Copyright by selling the original Star Control games
* Whether Reiche and Ford violated Trademark when they announced Ghosts of the Precursors
* Whether Stardock's plans to include older Star Control aliens violates Copyright, and whether their Trademark applications will succeed
* How the licensing agreement might affect these issues, and whether that agreement is still valid
* Whether the parties have misled customers about who was involved in the original games or forthcoming games
* What efforts the parties have made to compromise, and if any compromise is still possible
 

== Copyright ==

=== Who owns the copyrights in Star Control 1, 2, and 3? ===

[[File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|thumb|300px|right|The Star Control title screen, which attributes Copyright to Reiche and Ford.]]

Reiche and Ford are credited as the copyright holders on the original ''Star Control'' title screen[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/script/images/0/07/StarControl1TitleScreen.png] and packaging,[https://gamefaqs.akamaized.net/box/4/4/5/32445_back.jpg] as well as the sequel's packaging.[https://draginol.stardock.net/images2015/Star-Control-25th-anniversary---on-the-s_11DA0/image_thumb_3.png] This is consistent with the ''1988 Agreement with Accolade'', where Reiche and Ford are granted copyright ownership in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.1-11.4) Since the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO has confirmed on forums that Stardock does not claim Copyright in the first two games.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/80jm2w/for_those_interested_paul_and_freds_unedited/duxg4ib/] (However, Stardock's legal complaint does assert that "Reiche and Ford may not have created any of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf](pgph 57))

''Star Control 3'' belongs to multiple parties, as Accolade developed the game using existing copyrighted content from the first two games. Reiche and Ford agreed to license their intellectual property in Star Control 1 and 2 to Accolade for the development of Star Control 3 (which is documented in an addendum to their original agreement).[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] This is noted on the Star Control 3 CD jewel case, stating Accolade as the copyright holder, while using characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] In 1996, Accolade registered the Copyright for Star Control 3 with the United States Copyright Office,[https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&PID=iQB2klgPlkt2Twox3NCgbhk7wPQ&SEQ=20180504223742&CNT=25&HIST=1] which was eventually purchased by Stardock at Atari's bankruptcy (after Atari had acquired it from Accolade).[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford]

=== Who owns the copyright in the music of Star Control? ===

Music is often separate from the game itself. Section 1.5 of Addendum 3 to the 1988 contract includes "music" under the the intellectual property "owned by Reiche."[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5) This suggests that Reiche and Ford might own the music (and not Accolade or any other publisher), but it still leaves an open question about whether the musicians own the music or assigned it to Reiche and Ford at contract.

When Reiche and Ford made Star Control 2, they held a contest for musicians to have their [[Star Control Music|music in the games]].[http://skrolli.fi/2014.3.boing.pdf] One contest winner was [[Riku Nuottajärvi]], who has since released new remixes of that music without objection from any publisher, or from Reiche and Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/Star_Control_Music] Riku has since been hired by Stardock as the music lead for ''Star Control: Origins'', and has begun remixing some of the original music for the new game.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/58csqz/star_control_origins_theme_song_download_by_riku/]

Neither lawsuit specifically disputes ownership in the music, at present.

=== What rights are protected under copyright? ===

[[File:Image thumb 3.png |thumb|300px|right|A copyright holder can make derivative works based on the original work. This box describes Ford and Reiche as copyright holders in Star Control 2.]]

Copyright is secured automatically whenever a work (such as computer software, literary work, or other authorship) is created, and does not need to be registered.[https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-policy/copyright/copyright-basics][https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html#what_protect] This gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to the authored work, including the right to reproduce, distribute, or sell that work.

The copyright holder also controls the right to create derivative works based on the original work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf] For example, a sequel to a game or a movie using characters and other elements from the original would be a derivative work, and needs the permission of the original copyright holder.[https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-are-derivative-works-under-copyright-law][https://copyright.uslegal.com/enumerated-categories-of-copyrightable-works/compilations-collective-and-derivative-works/] The creator of the derivative work would be limited to copyrights in the new elements only, and their rights would exclude anything copied from the pre-exising work.[https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf]

=== So what caused the copyright dispute? ===
On October 19 2017, Stardock began selling the original copyrighted games through Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/] Reiche and Ford said they did not authorize this and requested a takedown,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come] and Stardock responded that Reiche and Ford's request includes "Star Control 3 which they admit they had no involvement".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180224052950/https://www.starcontrol.com/article/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred] In fact, Star Control 3 does use copyrighted content from the first two games, and states that they used characters under license from Reiche and Ford.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/star-control-3/cover-art/gameCoverId,275077/] Star Control 3 is a derivative work based on Star Control 1&2, which Accolade could only create with permission from Reiche and Ford, as seen in the 1995 addendum to their original agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== How can Stardock legally sell games copyrighted by someone else? ===

Stardock claims they purchased a license to sell and distribute the three games (among other legal rights), "that was explicitly transferred to us by Atari who in turn acquired it from Accolade".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180306195904/https://forums.starcontrol.com/486284/stardock-response-to-paul-and-fred-update] Recall that in 1988, Reiche/Ford had granted Accolade the right to sell their Star Control games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.2-3.1) Stardock has claimed that they purchased this agreement from Atari at bankruptcy in 2013,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas Reiche and Ford claim that this agreement had expired.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 33, 57)

=== How does a store like Steam handle a Copyright dispute? ===

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) holds online service providers liable whenever their users violate copyright law.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] As required by the DMCA, services such as Steam and GOG provide a tool to copyright holders to report any infringing content.[https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=837929245][https://support.gog.com/hc/en-us/articles/213224285-Copyright-Policy] The DMCA requires service providers to takedown infringing material once they are notified, but also includes safeguards to protect legitimate content from erroneous or fraudulent takedowns.[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf]

The DMCA creates a framework for how a service provider mediates a copyright dispute:[http://www.gimmelaw.com/the-digital-millennium-copyright-act-dmca-the-law-and-how-to-use-it]

* ''A copyright owner submits a notification under penalty of perjury, including a list of specified elements, to the service provider’s designated agent.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider promptly removes or blocks access to the material identified in the notification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''The subscriber serves a counter notification ... including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)
* ''Unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up.''[https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf] (page 12)

This process only affects the liability of a service provider like Steam.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act] These services are often uncertain about what is or is not infringing, due to information that is only known by the parties,[https://www.wired.com/2008/10/youtube-to-mcca/] and it is neither practical nor necessary for them to judge the validity of every notice or counter-notice.[http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-sprigman-lemley-notice-and-takedown-dmca-20160621-snap-story.html]

=== Can Copyright protect characters and plot lines? ===

Characters can be protected by Copyright.[https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://en.wikipedia.org/&httpsredir=1&article=1043&context=cybaris] According to federal courts:

<blockquote>''At one end of the spectrum, scenes a faire – the stock scenes and hackneyed character types that "naturally flow from a common theme" – are considered "ideas," and therefore are not copyrightable. But as plots become more intricately detailed and characters become more idiosyncratic, they at some point cross the line into "expression" and are protected by copyright.''[https://openjurist.org/268/f3d/1257](pgph 35)</blockquote>

Courts have refused to recognize protection for generic "scenes a faire", as you cannot Copyright an idea. Courts have refused to limit use of general ideas like a symbolic struggle between a Russian and an American,[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668], or scenes of slaves being chased through the woods with dogs.[https://cyber.harvard.edu/people/tfisher/Materials/1978AlexandervHaleyEdited.htm](sec IV)

Copyright does protect more specific forms of expression, and thus courts have decided cases to protect characters such as E.T.,[http://www.novalis.org/cases/ET.html](pgph 6-7), Spawn,[https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gaiman_v._McFarlane/Opinion_of_the_Court] and Rocky (as well as secondary characters including Adrian, Apollo Creed, Clubber Lang, and Paulie).[https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668](section A.2) Even the Batmobile had distinctive enough characteristics to be protected by Copyright.[http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/09/23/13-55484.pdf]

In the Second Addendum to the 1988 Agreement, Reiche and Ford allowed Accolade to "develop Star Control III using certain characters created by Reiche in Star Control and Star Control II".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](Recitals) The Addendum further attributes "all characters" and "other intellectual property rights pertaining to Star Control I and Star Control II in which Reiche has an ownership interest",[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf](pgph 2) which led Star Control 3 to credit "characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford."[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg] A later Addendum also describes "characters" among the "Reiche Intellectual Property".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 1.5)

== Licensing agreement ==
[[File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg|thumb|300px|right|In 1996, Accolade owned the Trademark in ''Star Control''. They also had Copyright in ''[[Star Control 3]]'', but licensed original characters from [[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]].]]

=== How does a licensing agreement work? ===
An intellectual property holder can legally transfer any of their rights to a third party. This can be any or all of the copyright holder's rights, including the right to sell and distribute copies of their work, or the right to adapt their work into a new derivative work.[https://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/license.html] A licensing agreement is a contract, and the terms of such a contract can be whatever the parties agree is fair.

=== What is in the 1988 Licensing Agreement? ===
Reiche and Ford gave Accolade the exclusive right to sell copies of Star Control. It also made sure that any sequel (derivative work) made by Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by them, while a sequel made without Reiche & Ford would have copyright owned by accolade, subject to the original copyright held by Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 3.1) It also granted Accolade the Star Control Trademarks, while ensuring that Reiche & Ford would own any copyright in any games they develop.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 11.3-11.5)

A 1995 addendum to the agreement granted the right to Accolade to develop Star Control 3, with intellectual property under license from Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf] (Another addendum for an unfinished Star Control 4 game expired after no game was produced.)[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf] Accolade effectively purchased from Reiche/Ford the rights to use pieces of the original games in the new sequels, but those parts would still belong to Reiche/Ford, with only the truly new parts of the sequels belonging to Accolade.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf]

=== Acquisition of licensing agreement ===
Accolade was eventually bought out by Atari (formerly Infogrames), who then took the place of Accolade as the legal license-holder to Reiche/Ford's copyrights.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atari,_SA]

Atari declared bankruptcy in 2013 and sold its assets to various parties. Stardock purchased all Star Control assets from Atari at bankruptcy,[http://bankrupt.com/misc/AtariDS.pdf](page 14) who claims that these assets included the 1988 Licensing Agreement.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]

=== But is the agreement still valid? ===

Paragraph 2.1 describes the ''Term'' of the agreement, which would continue "for as long as such Work, Derivative Work, and Derivative Product are generating royalties to the Developer at least of $1000 per annum".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 2.1) In an email from the early 2000s, Ford claims that Accolade "told
us they are going to default on this payment which means we are back to owning the characters and settings."[http://web.archive.org/web/20010515133200/http://www.classicgaming.com:80/starcontrol/history/fford4.shtml] By this time, the games were widely considered Abandonware, including SC1,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/143/Star+Control.html], SC2,[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/144/Star+Control+II.html], and SC3.[http://www.abandonia.com/en/games/822/Star+Control+3.html] More recently, Reiche and Ford have claimed that the games stopped being sold in 2000, and they stopped receiving royalties, and thus the license expired at that time.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

In a 2011 email thread between Reiche and Atari, both parties agreed that the 1988 License had expired years prior.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=2em8gs6trr6j&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/58770187](apr 25) In 2015, Stardock had stated "my position is that Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights."[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3] Years later, conversations between Stardock and Reiche eventually led them to discuss the License Agreement. In October 2017, Stardock asserted to Reiche that the games were on sale at that time, and thus generating royalties at the minimum required by the original license.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png] Reiche responded that Atari had agreed that the license expired during the 2001-2011 period of non-sale, and that it would be impossible for Stardock to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]

In addition to the ''Term'' clause, Reiche and Ford have highlighted three other clauses that would have caused the license to expire before Stardock's puchase:

* Paragraph 12.1 states that the "Agreement may not be assigned by (Accolade) without first obtaining the written consent of (Reiche and Ford)".[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 12.1) Reiche claims he did not give permission for Atari to assign the agreement to Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 57)

* Paragraph 7.1 states that the Agreement terminates upon bankruptcy of the publisher,[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf](pgph 7.1) which Atari filed for in 2013.[https://us.v-cdn.net/5019558/uploads/FileUpload/22/b3e05eac2b8e2ac0deeef3c43d3b7a.pdf]

* The 1998 addendum to the 1988 agreement included a three year term, which would have granted Accolade rights to any game they made during this term, but states after three years that the “Reiche Intellectual Property granted hereunder shall revert to Reiche”.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](pgph 4.1) This would have expired on April 1, 2001.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

== Trademarks ==

[[File:GOTPpost.png|thumb|300px|right|[[Paul Reiche III|Reiche]] and [[Fred Ford|Ford]]'s October announcement about ''Ghosts of the Precursors''. Stardock alleges that this announcement violated their Trademark in "Star Control".]]

=== Who owns the Trademark in "Star Control"? ===
Stardock purchased the Trademark to Star Control from Atari in their bankruptcy asset sale.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](exbt A, sch 1) In a settlement offer, Reiche/Ford have been willing to accept that Stardock is indeed the legal Trademark holder to "Star Control".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=o7q94urm99wv&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sect IVb) However, the Reiche/Ford lawsuit alleges that the Trademark may have expired due to years of non-use, during the period where none of the games were for sale in the early 2000s.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 41)

=== What rights are protected under Trademark? ===

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office, "A trademark is a brand name. A trademark or service mark includes any word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services."[https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics]

At its most basic level, this would mean that Stardock has the exclusive right to develop and release video games with the words "Star Control" in their title. However, Stardock also argues that their ownership of the Trademark also gives them the right to all unique names that have ever appeared in Star Control games, as well as the right to "determine what is canon in the Star Control universe".[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/1/#replies] Reiche and Ford contest this claim, as they had asked Stardock to withdraw their trademark applications for the alien names in their March 22 settlement proposal [https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] and dispute the legality of Stardock's trademark applications for the alien names in their Counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf](pgph 119-121) The same Counterclaim also distinguishes between the STAR CONTROL trademark and the in-universe organization called "Star Control", and argues that Stardock's inclusion of the latter in SC:O violates Reiche and Ford's IP rights.(pgph 103)

=== What is the dispute? ===
In October 2017, Reiche and Ford announced they would be creating a sequel to Star Control 2 called "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Initially, Stardock echoed this language with support for their sequel, saying "Paul told me the good news: Activision was going to let him do a true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters."[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] Stardock later filed a lawsuit against Reiche/Ford for Trademark infringement, and has since edited their post to remove the language referring to Ghosts of the Precursors as a "true sequel".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180119054230/https://forums.starcontrol.com/485378/ghosts-of-the-precursors] Stardock alleges in their lawsuit that Reiche/Ford are infringing the "Star Control" Trademark and misleading consumers by calling Ghosts of the Precursors a sequel to Star Control 2.[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 41)

=== What about the Trademark in "The Ur Quan Masters"? ===
Shortly after filing their lawsuit, Stardock also filed an application for a Trademark in "[[The_Ur-Quan_Masters|The Ur Quan Masters]]",[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] the name of the open source port of Star Control II that uses source code released to the fan community by Reiche and Ford. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) responded by asking Stardock to include evidence that they have been in fact using "The Ur Quan Masters" at commerce.[https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87720654&docId=OOA20180213153335#docIndex=2&page=1] Shortly thereafter, Reiche and Ford also filed an application for the same Trademark,[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch] with the USPTO responding that their application may be delayed pending the decision on Stardock's application.[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn87772787&docId=OOA20180515191624#docIndex=1&page=1] A successful Trademark application would give someone the exclusive right to use "The Ur Quan Masters" in commerce.

=== What about Stardock's Trademark applications for certain aliens? ===
A few days after Reiche and Ford filed their counterclaim, Stardock filed applications for several alien names from Star Control I and II, including "Arilou", "Pkunk", "Mycon", and so on.[[#Federal_Trademark_and_Copyright_Registrations|(below)]] According to Brad Wardell[https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/page/26/#3721998], the applications were filed in response to Reiche and Ford calling in their Counterclaim for the original Star Control trademark (registration number 2046036) to be canceled[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf] (pgph 129-130). Hypothetically, this could give Stardock the exclusive right to these aliens, if the registration is successful. According to the USPTO Trademark Manual, "marks that merely identify a character in a creative work, whether used in a series or in a single work, are not registrable".[https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Oct2012#/Oct2012/TMEP-1200d1e2735.html] That being said, courts have found that distinctive characters such as Mickey Mouse have acquired enough a secondary meaning to be protected under Trademark law.[https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/746/112/30961/#fn5_ref][https://cdn.d23.com/cdn2015/wp-content/uploads/1928/05/1180w-600h_TDID-mickey-mouse-trademark-780x440.jpg]

== Unfair competition ==

[[File:Star-Control-Universe-1280x1081.png|thumb|300px|right|Stardock created an image to describe how the games are connected, as reported by Ars Technica in October 2017.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/].]]

=== What are the allegations of unfair competition in each lawsuit? ===

Both sides have alleged that the other party has committed Trademark infringement, which falls under the definition of "unfair competition". More than this, each side has accused the other of "unfair competition" by making statements that might confuse or deceive people that Stardock and Reiche and Ford are somehow affiliated.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X4cef76a31c4f762d2d248e09832291a5&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate][https://www.scribd.com/document/372165500/Counter-claim-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford-vs-Stardock-Systems-Inc#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586Xff843a55ecf80137c46678c935e38668&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate]

=== Why does it matter if Reiche and Ford call themselves the "creators of Star Control"? ===

Stardock alleges that Reiche and Ford "advertising themselves as being the creators of the Classic Star Control Games is false and misleading, and has been made in an attempt to dishonestly benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with the STAR CONTROL Mark".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 54) If Reiche and Ford are not truly the creators of Star Control, then their GOTP announcement would be misleading or false, with legal consequences to follow.[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate](pgph 110)

Stardock's lawsuit further states that "Reiche and Ford may not have created ''any'' of the artwork, animation or characters incorporated in the games, or otherwise substantially contributed to the authorship of Star Control I and Star Control II".[https://www.scribd.com/document/372165367/Stardock-Systems-Inc-vs-Paul-Reiche-III-and-Robert-Frederick-Ford#from_embed?campaign=SkimbitLtd&ad_group=66960X1516586X76f07ee77ee4af69275ec7720c43022b&keyword=660149026&source=hp_affiliate&medium=affiliate] Since Stardock's legal claim appeared, alleged members of the Star Control 2 development team have appeared to credit Reiche and Ford as the driving creative force behind the game.[https://kotaku.com/1823244996] This includes Greg Johnson, who has credited Reiche and Ford for "having created the games",[https://twitter.com/ToejamGreg/status/967526760563621888] and described Reiche as "the creative genius of this entire Universe".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518203407/https://forums.stardock.net/485810/page/1/#10]

Previous publishers have credited Reiche and Ford as the "creators of Star Control" in 1998.[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs] Fans have colloquially called them the creators in the 1990s,[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim] and 2000s.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean] Journalists have followed suit,[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html], and continued to call them the creators in recent years.[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review][https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/?guccounter=1] Prior to the lawsuit, Stardock's CEO referred to them as the creators in 2014,[https://web.archive.org/web/20180518202803/https://forums.stardock.net/447576/page/4/#91] 2015,[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/3/#55] as well as 2017.[https://www.reddit.com/r/starcontrol/comments/75dmw9/official_sequel_to_urquan_masters_ghosts_of_the/] Stardock now publicly describes Reiche and Ford as the designers.[https://www.polygon.com/2018/2/22/17041632/star-control-stardock-brad-wardell-lawsuit]

=== Why does it matter how Stardock described their relationship with P&F leading up to SC:O? ===

Reiche and Ford have alleged that Stardock has made "false or misleading statements concerning Reiche and Ford’s involvement with and connection to Stardock’s goods and services, including, but not limited to, Star Control: Origins, is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Stardock".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There could be legal consequences if Stardock has overstated Reiche and Ford's involvement in ways that have confused fans. Without exact details of their conversations, it is not clear what kind of relationship existed between Stardock and Reiche and Ford, prior to the lawsuit.

Based on public statements as early as 2013, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford were "getting permission to work with us".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180402235157/https://forums.starcontrol.com/447576/new-star-control-alien-wishlist] In a 2014 interview, he further stated that "we'll be talking to Reiche and Ford as we go forward", and that he "talked to them quite a bit about what level of involvement they would like to have in the new game", but that they needed Accolade's permission to work together.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/] Reiche and Ford have categorized this as false or misleading in their counter-claim, stating that they had "declined any involvement because they did not want Stardock or anyone else to further develop their world, and they had always planned to work on it themselves in the future."[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] In 2016, Stardock's CEO stated that Reiche and Ford had been supportive of Star Control: Origins.[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies] After the GOTP announcement, the Stardock CEO initially stated that GOTP "was the result of some years of effort on our part to talk them into doing that".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180403172637/https://steamcommunity.com/app/271260/discussions/1/2381701715712918530/?ctp=2] and outlined the connection between ''Star Control: Origins'' and a "future Paul | Fred sequel" in an interview.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/] The Stardock CEO has stated that they met once at at conference, where "they came to our booth and we were supposed to have dinner but our schedules got tight".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]

== Outcomes ==

=== Who will win in court? ===

This is a multi-dimensional dispute, and it is unlikely anyone will win on every issue. This article attempts to provide the most accurate information possible, grounded in evidence and law. Readers may speculate. If it goes to court, the decision ultimately belongs to a judge.

=== Can this be settled out of court? ===

In theory, yes. In fact, 95% of cases are settled before trial.[https://thelawdictionary.org/article/what-percentage-of-lawsuits-settle-before-trial-what-are-some-statistics-on-personal-injury-settlements/] Whether a settlement will actually happen will depend on how strong each party thinks its legal position is, how much they are willing to compromise, and of course the individual personality traits involved.

Stardock's lawsuit claims Trademark in "Star Control" and other "accolade marks" such as "Ur Quan Masters",[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) whereas their settlement offer further asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using the mark "Ghosts of the Precursors".[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1-2) Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to stop representing themselves as the creators of Star Control.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 1.iii) Stardock's lawsuit claims a license to characters and plot elements from Reiche and Ford,[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 20) whereas their settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to refrain from using those elements, and to transfer all elements to Stardock.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) Finally, Stardock's settlement offer asks Reiche and Ford to pay $225,000 in damages,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 7) and to refrain from making a game in the same genre as Star Control for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

Reiche and Ford claim Copyright in the original games,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136b) but have privately offered to settle with Stardock for the original games to be distributed as open source.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec II) Although their lawsuit claims that the "Star Control" Trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) they have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark, as long as Stardock abandons its efforts to Trademark the original characters and aliens.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV) Echoing their lawsuit, their settlement offer asks Stardock to discontinue use of fictional elements created by Reiche.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec V)

It is possible that further settlement offers will be made, as these are just opening offers from each side. After those offers were published by Reiche and Ford,[https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope] settlement negotiations have been ordered by a magistrate to be kept private.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/36/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/] There will be a settlement conference May 14, 2018.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/35/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]

=== What is the worst case scenario for Star Control: Origins? ===

Before Star Control: Origins was released, Reiche and Ford asked for an injunction to stop Stardock from "all use of any creative material from Reiche and Ford’s Star Control Games in Star Control: Origins".[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 136a) This echoes their request in private settlement.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec 5) If an injunction had been issued, it could have caused developmental problems and delays for Origins depending on how deeply the infringing material was embedded in Origins and how much reworking would have been required to remove it.

In August 2018, Reiche and Ford issued a DMCA takedown notice against the Star Control: Origins Fleet Battles Beta, as well as the "Arilou" and "Chenjesu" DLC packs that were scheduled to be released with the game[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf][https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf]. In response, Stardock filed a motion for an injunction against further DMCA notices being served against Origins[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/56/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/], and Reiche and Ford agreed to refrain from sending any more DMCA notices while the issue was before the judge[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. However, when Stardock's motion was denied on December 27, 2018[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf], Reiche and Ford promptly sent new DMCA notices against the game itself, which was released on September 20, 2018[https://content.screencast.com/users/draginol/folders/Snagit/media/530875f0-933f-4aff-943c-d15035d58a3a/12.31.2018-16.33.png]. Reiche and Ford's post in their Dogar and Kazon blog cites an example of how the expression of interstellar travel in Origins is (according to Reiche and Ford) "substantially similar and/or derivative" of Star Control II, and claims that there are "many such examples" of copyright infringement in SC:O[https://dogarandkazon.squarespace.com/blog/2019/1/2/injunction-junction-court-instruction]. While Stardock has since issued counter-notices to resume the sales of the game, it shows that Reiche and Ford already claim that SC:O infringes on their copyright.

The lawsuit has alleged that the Star Control trademark may have expired,[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 39-41) but this would ultimately allow multiple parties to release a Star Control game, or allow Stardock to release their new game under a new name. Even so, Reiche and Ford have offered to stop using the Star Control Trademark in their settlement offer.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=jl6zvf5smemf&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549802](sec IV)

=== What is the worst case scenario for Ghosts of the Precursors? ===

Stardock's lawsuit claims ownership of the "Star Control" Trademark, as well as the "Accolade marks" including "Ur Quan Masters".[https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford](pgph 29, 47-48) Stardock has further attempted to register numerous Trademarks in names and terms from the original games.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]] Hypothetically, this might prevent Reiche and Ford from making a game unless they change the names of all the aliens.

Stardock's complaint, starting with its second amended version, also seeks to "invalidate Reiche’s and Ford’s alleged copyrights, including any registrations they have obtained in connection therewith"[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf] (Prayer for Relief x).

Stardock's settlement offer goes even further, asking Reiche and Ford to assign all intellectual property in Star Control to Stardock,[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 3) and asking Reiche and Ford to refrain from making a game in the Star Control genre for 5 years.[https://e.issuu.com/issuu-reader3-embed-files/1549/iframe-embed.html?identifier=xsqlvhxsujof&hostUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogarandkazon.com%2F&hostReferrer&embedType=script#32834732/59549829](sec 5)

== The Settlement of Now and Forever ==

Announced by both Fred and Paul, and Stardock on June 11, 2019, all parties involved had agreed to an amicable settlement.

* '''Ars Technica:''' [https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/06/stardock-and-star-control-creators-settle-lawsuits-with-mead-and-honey/ Stardock and Star Control creators settle lawsuits—with mead and honey]
* '''Dogar and Kazon:''' [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2019/6/11/the-only-way-to-win-is The Only Way to Win is...]
* '''Stardock:''' [https://forums.starcontrol.com/495396/stardock-paul-reiche-to-team-up-on-next-star-control-game-beekeeping Stardock, Paul Reiche to team up on next Star Control game, beekeeping]

=== Summary of the Settlement ===

'''As per Ars Technica:'''
* All existing lawsuits between Stardock and Ford & Reiche are dismissed with prejudice.
* All parties are responsible for their own attorney's fees.
* Stardock gets to use the Star Control name for its Star Control Origins game and can develop sequels and DLCs as it likes.
* Ford & Reiche get to continue to develop their own direct Ur-Quan Masters sequel.
* The Star Control Origins universe (now known as "the Star Control franchise") will continue in a disconnected bubble from the Ur-Quan Masters/Ghosts of the Precursors universe.
* Reiche will contribute some writing to the Origins universe, in a volunteer role.
* All of the complicated arguments about who owns which copyrights and trademarks and who they bought them from and when and what's copyrightable and what's not are mooted.
* The original three Star Control games can continue to be sold on other storefronts, including Stardock's, and Stardock will split revenue from those games' sales with Ford & Reiche.
* No licensing money changed hands.
* Brad Wardell of Stardock must furnish Paul Reiche with a specific amount of honey from Wardell's apiary.
* In turn, Paul Reiche must furnish Brad Wardell with a specific amount of mead brewed from Wardell's bees' honey.

Ultimately the resolution was sparked by a unusual approach and tangential shared interests... Honey and Bees.

== Timeline of Star Control ==

=== Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-2000 ===

* '''1988-10''': Accolade and Reiche/Ford enter into an agreement to develop three games.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf]
* '''1989''': Reiche and Ford found a game development company called ''[[Toys for Bob]]''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_for_Bob]
* '''1990-07''': ''Star Control'' is released, created by Reiche and Ford.[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438453/]
* '''1992-10''': ''Star Control 2'' is released, and is acclaimed as one of the best games that year.[http://www.cgwmuseum.org/galleries/index.php?year=1993&pub=2&id=104]
* '''1996-09''': ''Star Control 3'' is released, based upon characters created and used under license from Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:275077-star-control-3-dos-other.jpg]
* '''1997''': Compared to the first two games created by Toys for Bob, the third game from Legend Entertainment is not as commercially or critically successful.[https://www.giantbomb.com/legend-entertainment-company/3010-332/]
* '''1998-09''': Toys for Bob develop new games and franchises, and press and advertisements continue to describe them as "''the creators of Star Control''".[http://www.mobygames.com/game/playstation/unholy-war/adblurbs]
* '''1998-10''': Fans push for a sequel made by Toys for Bob. Paul and Fred tell fans that their campaigns will help make that possible, and that they personally own all rights in Star Control, other than the name and material in SC3.[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/IRC_chat_Oct_1998_QA_trim]

=== Disappearance: 2000-2001 ===

* '''2000-04''': French game publisher Infogrames buys Accolade.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/infogrames-buys-accolade/1100-2451655/]
* '''2000''': A fourth Star Control game is ultimately scrapped after a few iterations.[http://www.star-control.com/sc4/]
* '''2000''': Reiche and Ford claim the games were no longer on sale or generating royalties, triggering the end of the 1988 License Agreement.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)
* '''2001-04''': Addendum 3 to the original contract expires.[https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf](sec 4.1) According to Reiche and Ford, by this date all licenses expire, reverting Trademark to Accolade, and reverting all other rights to them.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 37)

=== Legacy: 2002-2012 ===
* '''2002-11''': The Ur-Quan Masters open source project is released, with Star Control 2 code donated by Toys for Bob. The game is downloaded 100,000 times within one month, and nearly 2 million times from 2002 to 2018.[https://sourceforge.net/projects/sc2/files/stats/timeline?dates=2002-08-05+to+2018-04-14]
* '''2003''': Infogrames renames company to Atari, after acquiring Atari.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2003-08''': Reiche and Ford discuss the Ur-Quan Masters project, and voice their support for the fan community who worked on it.[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20030822-formatted]
* '''2005-05''': Journalists report that Toys for Bob, "''the brains behind Star Control''", have been fully acquired by Activision.[https://www.gamespot.com/articles/activision-bobs-for-toys/1100-6123494/]
* '''2005-10''': Reiche and Ford tell fans they have deliberately kept their rights to Star Control 1 and 2.[https://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=2150.msg28301#msg28301]
* '''2005-12''': Star Control 2 is ranked #17 on IGN's top 100 games of all time.[http://top100.ign.com/2005/011-020.html]
* '''2006-03''': ''Pelit'' reports that that around the year 2000, Toys for Bob turned down an offer to purchase the Star Control Trademark from Accolade for $50,000, prompting them to consider a Star Control sequel under a different name.[https://www.pelit.fi/artikkelit/star-controlbrkontrollin-aikakirjat/]
* '''2006-04''': Journalists and fans report that Toys for Bob, the creators of Star Control, are organizing an official petition to create a new Star Control, and implies that they have the rights to the franchise.[https://slashdot.org/story/06/04/16/0445202/hope-for-another-star-control-sequel]
* '''2006-06''': Toys for Bob website reports that ''"We (I) [written by TFB employee Alex Ness] want us to do a Star Control sequel."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2006-08''': Star Control 1 is noted as a breakthrough game on the Sega Genesis, as "''Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford’s masterpiece''". [http://www.sega-16.com/2006/08/star-control/]
* '''2007-06''': Toys for Bob website reports ''"we have talked to our parent company Activision about doing a Star Control sequel, quite seriously, and there did honestly seem to be some real live interest on their part."''[http://starcontroller.com/?p=90]
* '''2007-06''': Paul and Fred discuss the fan petition and their efforts to make another Star Control. ''"You will see an SC3 someday. Paul and I have every intention of continuing our almost 19 year collaboration and we're still excited about SC”''[http://uqm.stack.nl/files/chat/tfbchat-20070613-clean]
* '''2007-09''' Atari renews the Star Control trademark, which Reiche and Ford later argue as invalid in their counterclaim.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2007-12''': In IGN's top 100 games list honoring Archon, they note Paul Reiche as half of the partnership that made Star Control.[http://top100.ign.com/2007/ign_top_game_100.html]
* '''2008-12''': IGN includes Star Control in a list of 10 games they would most like to see another sequel.[http://ca.ign.com/articles/2008/12/04/the-wednesday-10-franchises-we-want-resurrected]
* '''2010-08''': In a forum thread about an SC sequel, Fred Ford writes "''I want to mention that I've started doing some unspecified work away from the office after some early and continuing conversations with Paul.''"[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4211#p4211] &emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp;&emsp; He further states ''"It will definitely be in our spare time for a while...this is not a TFB venture. It is a Paul and Fred venture."''[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?p=4235#p4235]
* '''2010-08''': An unofficial fan interview quotes Fred Ford as planning a 2D Star Control sequel as personal side-project.[http://www.star-control.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=291]
* '''2011-01''': IDDQD reports that Toys for Bob would like to make a true sequel to Star Control.[http://iddqd.blog.hu/2011/01/13/heti_retro_star_control_ii?token=a828faf30f42c183b7a52775350f096b]
* '''2011-04''': Star Control 1 and 2 are announced for sale on GOG.[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:cwPuGuDOc94J:https://www.gog.com/news/new_release_star_control_1_2+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-b-ab]
* '''2011-04''': Reiche and Ford contact Atari saying Atari's "''rights lapsed many years ago''". Atari responds, "''I had our attorney check this out and you are correct.''" They negotiate a new distribution arrangement.[https://e.issuu.com/embed.html?identifier=rsnpm8nybvs3&embedType=script#32834732/58770187]
* '''2011-06''': An Engadget profile on Toys for Bob notes Paul Reiche as the co-creator of Star Control.[https://www.engadget.com/2011/06/06/whats-in-a-name-toys-for-bob/]
* '''2011-10''': In an interview with CVG, Paul Reiche announces: "''we promise someday, we will make the real sequel''" to Star Control.[http://starcontroller.com/?p=1928]
* '''2011-11''': A Kotaku profile on Paul Reiche notes him as co-creator of Star Control.[https://kotaku.com/5857232/the-man-who-wants-to-re-invent-toys-before-video-games-destroy-them]
* '''2012-10''': In the leadup to another Toys for Bob game, Kotaku,[https://kotaku.com/5953530/skylanders-giants-the-kotaku-review] Wired,[https://www.wired.com/2012/10/toys-for-bob-skylanders-giants/] and Destructoid all describe Toys for Bob as creators of Star Control.[https://www.destructoid.com/merging-toys-and-videogames-with-skylanders-236668.phtml]

=== Stardock purchase and development: 2013-2017 ===

* '''2013-01''': Atari (formerly Infogrames) files for bankruptcy.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/01/todays-atari-bankruptcy-latest-in-a-long-history-of-corporate-deaths/]
* '''2013-07''': Stardock announces that they have acquired Star Control assets from Atari, in bankruptcy sale.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/07/stardock-acquires-star-control-rights-in-fire-sale-plans-reboot/]
* '''2013-07-24''': Stardock tells fans that Reiche and Ford directly own the copyright in Star Control 1&2, and may be able to work on a new Star Control game.[http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=5463.msg71121#msg71121]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to be involved in new Star Control game. They decline, stating "''Fred and I are just not comfortable handing over our world to be developed by others''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-09-16''': Stardock responds by offering to sell "''the IP rights we acquired from Atari''", for the price "''at our (Stardock's) cost''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/dd82f909-49ef-4a81-a160-a9664274ff18.png]
* '''2013-10-16''': The parties discuss "''the total Star Control rights and assets you acquired from Atari''" and Stardock's cost in acquiring them.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/4ee3cffd-233f-4901-9e1d-be7757699ef1.png]
* '''2013-10-25''': Stardock again asks Reiche and Ford if they want to purchase these assets. Reiche and Ford decline.[https://i.imgur.com/6vNjsjw.png]
* '''2014-01''' Stardock announces development of new Star Control game with independent storyline. Says "''we will be talking to Paul and Fred as we go forward''" and they "''cannot be officially involved at present''".[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stardock-ceo-reveals-details-about-new-star-control-title-in-development/]
* '''2015-03''': Stardock CEO meets Reiche and Ford at booth at Game Developers Conference.[https://web.archive.org/web/20180406194409/http://forum.uqm.stack.nl/index.php?topic=7015.msg77192]
* '''2015-09''': Stardock CEO publicly states that Reiche and Ford have been "''very supportive''", and that "''Stardock doesn't have the legal rights to the original (Star Control) lore either. Or, if we did, we have long since refuted those rights.''"[https://web.archive.org/web/20160826230848/http://forums.starcontrol.com:80/471109/page/3#replies]
* '''2015-10''': Stardock CEO updates Reiche and Ford on development. Reiche and Ford again decline involvement, as they "''want to keep our copywritten material from Star Control exclusive to our own future project''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ac3f8849-fce0-46d7-8bc4-488a12d2afaa.png]
* '''2015-11''': Stardock CEO publicly states that "''I don't believe anyone but Paul and Fred have the rights to mess with the Ur-Quan lore and aliens''", and that they own "''personal, common-law copyright''".[https://web.archive.org/web/20180509232432/https://forums.starcontrol.com/471109/page/9/]
* '''2015-12''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license Star Control characters to Galactic Civilizations III.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 74)
* '''2016-10-12''' Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford "''to release an update to Star Control 1/2 under the existing agreement (50/50) split if we can get your permission''".[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 75)
* '''2016-10-18''' Stardock releases teaser for ''Star Control: Origins''.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/a-first-look-at-star-control-origins-gameplay-prequel-due-for-release-in-2h17/]

=== Private dispute and alleged infringement: 2017 ===

* '''2017-07-28''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to participate in their ''Star Control'' anniversary plans, which they decline on account of their own plans.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 76)
* '''2017-09-15''': Stardock CEO allegedly asks Reiche and Ford to license the ships from Star Control 1 and 2, in exchange for a royalty.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html]
* '''2017-09-29''': Stardock CEO asks Reiche and Ford to use ships from Star Control 1 and 2, and to participate in Stardock's ''Star Control'' anniversary plans.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/60909f27-648d-4399-b953-05ae4f274de6.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Reiche tells Stardock that Activision has allowed them to make "''a sequel to Star Control 2''", which they will announce soon. They decline to license any IP.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a36c96e5-9216-4c21-b39c-ee73fa7fbd39.png]
* '''2017-10-04''': Stardock CEO responds that "''we do have a license to your IP to use per the original agreement''" and offers "''coexistence''" by licensing the ships at the "''already agreed upon royalty''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/03ae818b-816c-4874-8c8b-86629ba9af7d.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche offers "''our respective rights''" are Stardock owning the Trademark, with Ford/Reiche "''owning all the IP rights to the works we created''". Reiche states that Stardock already acknowledged license had expired.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/ad4dd7d8-a995-42e6-abbd-6078a2757ad5.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds that license is still valid under section 2.2, as "''you are continuing to receive royalties''", and suggest working on a "''mutually beneficial release plan''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/0e996554-8c7d-4b65-a171-46e36a10d1f2.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Reiche responds that "''section 2.2 lapsed many years ago''", and ask Stardock for their position on IP rights. He further states "''as a courtesy, our anniversary announcement is imminent''".[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/7be88f9c-7d3d-47b5-9030-bc2cbb62a061.png]
* '''2017-10-06''': Stardock CEO responds by referring to section 2.2, and that royalties are still being paid. Suggest coordinated announcements, that Stardock owns Trademark and license to sell original games.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/a67e50ba-6740-4dfd-b92a-69b37ee4933f.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Reiche responds "''there were many years where we received nothing''" until GOG began selling the games, and that caused section 2.2 to lapse "''decades ago''", with no chance to regain those rights.[https://cdn.stardock.us/forums/0/0/1/d0a9f996-e553-48a2-8651-c82b4a8f25b9.png]
* '''2017-10-07''': Allegedly, Stardock CEO rejects that the license expired. He allegedly suggests he will use Reiche and Ford's IP under the license, and mentions possibility of litigation.[https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html](pgph 86)
* '''2017-10-09''': Reiche and Ford publicly announce Ghosts of the Precursors as a "''direct sequel to Star Control II -- the Ur Quan Masters''".[http://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/File:GOTPpost.png]
* '''2017-10-09''': Stardock publicly echoes Reiche/Ford's game announcement as "true sequel to Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters". Media and journalists pick up both announcements.[https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/10/11/star-control-ii-devs-finally-making-sequel/] (Both announcements are later re-edited.)
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock begins selling Star Control 1, 2, and 3, along with pre-orders for Star Control: Origins, on Steam.[https://web.archive.org/web/20171025035520/http://store.steampowered.com/app/358920/Star_Control_The_UrQuan_Masters/]
* '''2017-10-19''': Stardock CEO gives an interview describing Star Control multiverse, with mockups and images connecting both games.[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/10/stardock-ceo-talks-star-control-origins-player-crafting-and-upcoming-beta/]
* '''2017-11''': Alleged/unknown discussions continue between Stardock and Reiche/Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/][https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-11-09''': Stardock makes Star Control anniversary announcement giving credit to the rest of the Star Control II team. Team member Greg Johnson responds with additional credit to Reiche and Ford.[https://forums.stardock.net/485810/star-control-ii-25th-anniversary---on-the-shoulders-of-giants#replies](Stardock re-edited)
* '''2017-11-16''': Stardock releases Star Control Fleet Battles Beta.[https://forums.starcontrol.com/485611/star-control-origins-fleet-battles-beta-begins-today]
* '''2017-12-01''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to Steam.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12-04''' (Estimated): Reiche and Ford issue a DMCA takedown notice to GoG.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)
* '''2017-12''': Stardock issues a counter-notice to Steam. The games remain for sale.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/](pgph 89)

=== Legal actions: 2017-present ===
* '''2017-12-08''': Stardock files legal claim against Reiche and Ford.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/1/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2017-12-14''': Stardock files application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-01-26''': Reiche and Ford file application for Trademark in "Ur Quan Masters".[http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch]
* '''2018-02-22''': Reiche and Ford file defense and counterclaim against Stardock.[https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/17/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/]
* '''2018-02-26''': Stardock begins registering Trademarks for the names of several Star Control alien races.[[#Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations|(below)]]

== List of References ==
=== Court Received===
* [https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/23260369/Stardock_Systems,_Inc_v_PAUL_REICHE_III,_et_al PacerMonitor]
* [https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6239751/stardock-systems-inc-v-paul-reiche-iii/ CourtListener]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.1.0.pdf (1) - December 8, 2017 - COMPLAINT against Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.16.0.pdf (16) - February 22, 2018 - ANSWER to Complaint with JURY DEMAND by Robert Frederick Ford, Paul Reiche III.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.17.0.pdf (17) - February 22, 2018 - COUNTERCLAIM against Stardock Systems, Inc.. Filed by Paul Reiche III, Robert Frederick Ford.]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.27.0.pdf (27) - March 15, 2018 - AMENDED COMPLAINT]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.34.0.pdf (34) - March 28, 2018 - Minute Entry for proceedings held before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.35.0.pdf (35) - March 28, 2018 - Notice of Settlement Conference and Ordering Setting Settlement Conference before Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C Spero]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.36.0.pdf (36) - March 28, 2018 - ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.0.pdf (37) - March 29, 2018 - Answer to Amended Complaint 27 by Robert Frederick Ford and Paul Reiche III]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.1.pdf Exhibit 1 - The 1988 Agreement between Reiche and Accolade]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.2.pdf Exhibit 2 - Addendum 1, covering the 3DO port]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.3.pdf Exhibit 3 - Addendum 2, covering Star Control 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.4.pdf Exhibit 4 - Addendum 3, covering additional games for three years]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.37.5.pdf Exhibit 5 - Atari bankruptcy sale order and purchase agreement]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.38.0.pdf (38) - April 16, 2018 - ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM 17 Counterclaim, by Stardock Systems, Inc.]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/o2re6uq9pbyl5p1/%2346%20-%20Letter%2021%20June%202018.pdf?dl=1 (46) - June 21, 2018 - Letter from All Parties re Compliance with Discovery Meet and Confer per Section 9 of ND's Guidelines for Professional Conduct.]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/fsntm9m7i39av1b/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20A.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibit A]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/0gautrda7j9us1i/%2346%20-%20Exhibit%20B.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 2 - Exhibit B]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/ho00cwjsqxy0n4f/%2346%20-%20Affidavit%20Attestation.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 3 - Affidavit Attestation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.49.0.pdf (49) - Stipulation for Filing of Second Amended Complaint and Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.0.pdf (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Reiche & Ford]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.50.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.51.0.pdf (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint Filed by Stardock]
*** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/nizgxnummmq7h26/%2351%20-%20Exhibits%20A-Y.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits A-Y]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.53.0.pdf|(53) - Answer to Amended Complaint by Reiche & Ford]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.54.0.pdf|(54) - Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.55.0.pdf|(55) - ERRATA to Answer to Amended Counterclaim by Stardock Systems, Inc.]]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.0.pdf (56) - MOTION by Stardock Systems, Inc. for Temporary Restraining Order against DMCA.]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Wardell Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Valve DMCA 2018/08/17]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Valve Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.4.pdf Attachment 4 - GoG DMCA 2018/08/21]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.5.pdf Attachment 5 - GoG Counter-notice (undated)]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Web page screenshots]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Weikert Declaration]
*** [[media:Gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.8.pdf| Attachment 8 - Stardock Second Amended Complaint Copy]]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.9.pdf Attachment 9 - Reiche & Ford First Amended Counter-Complaint Copy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/22]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Steinberg to Weikert email 2018/08/23]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.12.pdf Attachment 12 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/08/24]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.13.pdf Attachment 13 - Weikert to Steinberg email 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Weikert - Steinberg emails 2018/09/06]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.56.15.pdf Attachment 15 - Proposed Order]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.58.0.pdf (58) - ORDER to Meet and Confer regarding Preliminary Injunction]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.59.0.pdf (59) - Stipulation with Proposed Order by Reiche and Ford]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.60.0.pdf (60) - ORDER as stipulated]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.0.pdf (64) - Reiche & Ford Reply to Request for Preliminary Injunction]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Reiche Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.2.pdf Attachment 2 - 1988 Agreement]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.3.pdf Attachment 3 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 1]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Star Control II Computer Code Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Star Control II Audiovisual Copyright]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.6.pdf Attachment 6 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 2]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Reiche - Accolade emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.8.pdf Attachment 8 - 1988 Agreement Addendum 3]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.9.pdf Attachment 9 - 2011 Atari/GoG emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.10.pdf Attachment 10 - Reiche - Wardell emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.11.pdf Attachment 11 - Wardell ArsTechnica interview]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.12.pdf Attachment 12 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.13.pdf Attachment 13 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.14.pdf Attachment 14 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.15.pdf Attachment 15 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.16.pdf Attachment 16 - UQM Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.17.pdf Attachment 17 - Stardock Forum posts]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.18.pdf Attachment 18 - Steinberg Declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.19.pdf Attachment 19 - Atari Bankruptcy Auction Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.20.pdf Attachment 20 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.21.pdf Attachment 21 - Stardock Discovery objection]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.22.pdf Attachment 22 - Weikert - Steinberg emails]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.23.pdf Attachment 23 - Request for notice of Atari bankruptcy]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 24 - Atari Star Control Bankruptcy Sale Documents]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.24.pdf Attachment 25 - Proposed order denying TRO/PI]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.26.pdf Attachment 26 - Objections to Wardell declaration]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.64.27.pdf Attachment 27 - Proposed order regarding Wardell declaration]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.0.pdf (71) - Second Amended Counterclaim against Stardock, GOG, and Valve]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.1.pdf Attachment 1 - Exhibit 1 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.2.pdf Attachment 2 - Exhibit 2 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.3.pdf Attachment 3 - Exhibit 3 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.4.pdf Attachment 4 - Exhibit 4 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.5.pdf Attachment 5 - Exhibit 5 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.6.pdf Attachment 6 - Exhibit 6 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.7.pdf Attachment 7 - Exhibit 7 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
*** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.71.8.pdf Attachment 8 - Exhibit 8 to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.72.0.pdf Third Amended Complaint by Stardock]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.75.0.pdf Answer to Second Amended Counterclaim]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.101.0.pdf (101) - Answer to Counterclaim by Valve Corporation]
** [https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.320268/gov.uscourts.cand.320268.102.0.pdf (102) - Order by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong denying 56 Motion for Preliminary Injection]
* [https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/judge-calendars Judges' Calendars]
====Mirrors====
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385277-Stardock-Legal-Complaint-2635-000-P-2017-12-08-1.html (1) - Stardock Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counterclaim.html (17) - Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/374525505/First-Amended-Complaint-Stardock-v-Paul-Reiche-and-Fred-Ford (27) - Stardock Amended Legal Complaint]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/s6m4n7uhnps44dc/%2350%20-%20Claim%20aka%20Amended%20Counterclaim%20by%20P%26F.pdf?dl=1 (50) - Claim, aka Amended Counterclaim filed by Paul & Fred]
** [https://www.dropbox.com/s/cz9vjzds3uqvpmt/%2350%20-%20Exhibits%201-8.pdf?dl=1 Attachment 1 - Exhibits 1-8]
* [https://www.dropbox.com/s/uksp4k7wrq43y21/%2351%20-%20Amended%20complaint%2C%20aka%20Second%20Amended%20Complaint%20Filed%20by%20Stardock.pdf?dl=1 (51) - Amended complaint, aka Second Amended Complaint]
* [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.0.pdf|(104) MOTION to Dismiss Count Nine of Second Amended Counterclaim filed by GOG LIMITED, GOG POLAND SP. Z.O.O.]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.104.1.pdf|(104.1) Proposed Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claim]]
** [[Media:gov.uscourts.cand.320268.119.0.pdf|(119) GOG Reply in favor of dismissal of counterclaim #9]]
* [https://www.scribd.com/document/398564711/Letters-from-Stardock-to-Valve-and-GOG-regarding-DMCA-claims-of-Ford-and-Reiche 2019-01 DMCA Counternotice & Indemnification for Star Control: Origins]

=== Fred and Paul Provided ===
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/1/there-were-many-great-battles-and-some-of-them-involved-lawyers Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2017/12/4/star-control-i-ii-and-iii-arent-for-sale-on-gogcom-any-more-how-come Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/22/stardock-claims-we-are-not-the-creators-of-star-control-sues-us-wtf Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/2/27/report-from-planet-surface Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/gog_email_chain_-_no_email_addresse GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/18/strange-settlement-on-an-alien-planet Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet]
* [https://www.dogarandkazon.com/blog/2018/3/24/nope-and-nope Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/reiche_stardock_settlement_offer Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018]
** [https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/settlement_agreement__stardock_vs_r Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018]
** [https://wiki.uqm.stack.nl/images/8/89/StardockSettlementSchedD.png Stardock's Proposed Schedule D] ([https://issuu.com/dogarandkazon/docs/schedule_d_text_from_stardock Original])

=== Stardock Provided ===
* [https://forums.starcontrol.com/487690/qa-regarding-star-control-and-paul-and-fred Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred]

=== Federal Trademark and Copyright Registrations ===
==== Active ====
* [http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pn=Stardock&cn=Palmer List of Trademark Opposition Proceedings]
* Trademarks - [https://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office] (By next action date):
** (Published): "Star Control" (Service Mark use by Stardock Systems Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87697919&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91243698 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246027 Opposition Withdrawn])
** (Published): "Frungy Games" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87878093&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91246028 Opposition Withdrawn])
** 2019-06-12: "Star Control" (Trademark use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87807839&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Published]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87807839 Opposition Pending])
** (Suspended): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87772787&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Under Examination]) (Blocked by [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "The Ur-Quan Masters"], which was suspended pending litigation but is now abandoned)
** 2026-03-18: "Star Control" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=75095591&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Registered]) - Originally by Accolade, Inc.

* Copyrights - [https://www.copyright.gov/ United States Copyright Office] - [http://cocatalog.loc.gov United States Copyright Public Catalog]
** Star Control II - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002071496&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002071496] - Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III
** Star Control II: The Ur-Quan Masters - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0002107340&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0002107340] - Paul Reiche III and Fred Ford (Re-registration with assignment)
** Star Control III - [https://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?Search_Arg=PA0000799000&Search_Code=REGS&CNT=25 PA0000799000] - Accolade, Inc

==== Abandoned Trademarks ====
* (Abandoned): "Fwiffo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016354&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247095 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Druuge" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033544&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247098 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Chmmr" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88033532&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91247097 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained)
* (Abandoned): "Ghosts of the Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III ): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87633531&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91242194 Opposition]) (Opposition sustained, was blocking [https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87655620&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch "Remnants of the Precursors"])
* (Abandoned): "Precursors" (Intent by Paul Reiche III): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87879067&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "The Ur-Quan Masters" (Use by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87720654&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned])
* (Abandoned): "SUPER-MELEE" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87662697&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]) ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=91244069 Opposition])
* (Abandoned): "Orz" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810480&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810480 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Melnorme" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810528&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810528 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "VUX" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810526&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810526 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Yehat" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87825741&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87825741 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Taalo" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877907&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877907 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Dnyarri" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87877969&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87877969 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Pkunk" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810516&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810516 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Chenjesu" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810499&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810499 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Spathi" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810492&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810492 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ur-Quan" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810484&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810484 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Arilou" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810518&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810518 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Ilwrath" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810502&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810502 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Syreen" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810486&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810486 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Androsynth" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=87810495&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=87810495 Opposition Pending])
* (Abandoned): "Crimson Corporation" (Intent by Stardock Systems, Inc.): ([https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=88016293&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Abandoned]), ([http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=88016293 Opposition Pending])

=== Game Related Materials ===
==== Screenshots ====
<gallery>
File:StarControl1TitleScreen.png|Star Control 1 Title Screen
File:StarControl2TitleScreen.png|Star Control 2 Title Screen
File:StarControl3TitleScreen.png|Star Control 3 Title Screen
</gallery>

=== Law Related Materials ===

==== Commentary from Lawyers ====
* "Lawful Masses", by Leonard French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it50gS5yYB4 Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yochP8F69LY part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieb1ajwwUFo part 3]
* "YouTuber Law", by Lior Leser: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Syz3hMTHCA Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg1kUnU5344 part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RuLAtF9f6E part 3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mT9ZgPnUuiI part 4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E95izB4i0G4 part 5]
* "Virtual Legality", by Richard Hoeg: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVJIgLnDbcQ Part 1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgmX2GHF88o part 2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqrbtBJR2oQ part 3]

==== United States Copyright Office ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.copyright.gov/

'''FAQ:''' https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/index.html

'''Public Catalog:''' http://cocatalog.loc.gov/

'''Copyright Law Listing:''' https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

==== Significant Copyright Court Cases ====
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Supreme_Court_copyright_case_law List of United States Supreme Court copyright case law]

===== Anderson v. Stallone =====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Stallone

'''Harvard Law Case Ruling:''' https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4668

===== Spry Fox, LLC v. LOLApps, Inc =====
'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4411020/spry-fox-llc-v-lolapps-inc/

'''Docket 24''': https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.181650.24.0.pdf

'''Forbes Write Up of Case''': https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2012/09/27/recent-ruling-in-triple-townyeti-town-game-app-dispute-provides-cautionary-lessons-for-both-ea-and-zynga/#552f1cd8f922

==== United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://www.uspto.gov/

'''Trademark Basics Page:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-basics

'''Trademark Process:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-process

'''Trademark Database Search:''' https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database

==== Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current

'''Summary:''' Current practices and laws regarding of United States Federal Trademarks.

==== Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) ====
'''Web Link:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current

'''Summary:''' Current United States Federal Trademark guide to determine how to appropriate examine a trademark for validity.

==== Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg_Co._v._National_Biscuit_Co.

'''Summary:''' "Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111 (1938), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the Kellogg Company was not violating any trademark or unfair competition laws when it manufactured its own Shredded Wheat breakfast cereal, which had originally been invented by the National Biscuit Company (later called Nabisco). Kellogg's version of the product was of an essentially identical shape, and was also marketed as "Shredded Wheat"; but Nabisco's patents had expired, and its trademark application for the term "Shredded Wheat" had been turned down as a descriptive, non-trademarkable term.

The Court therefore "forcefully applied the principle that once a patent has expired, its benefits are to be freely enjoyed by the public." Kellogg has been called possibly "the Supreme Court's most versatile and influential trademark decision". It had a direct impact on the structure of the Lanham Act and is a "routine starting point for analysis in trademark opinions in lower courts.""

'''Supreme Court Decision:''' https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/305/111.html

'''Significance:''' Foundational court case that helped write the Lanham Act and established the Functionality Doctrine.

==== Lanham Act ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

'''Summary:''' "The Lanham (Trademark) Act (Pub.L. 79–489, 60 Stat. 427, enacted July 5, 1946, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. (15 U.S.C. ch. 22)) is the primary federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The Act prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising."

'''Significance:''' These are the laws that serve as the basis of the counts by Stardock's claim.

'''Court Cases related to the Lanham Act:''' These are court cases that showcase the use of the Lanham.
* "Raunchy film can use ‘No Sesame. All Street’ in trailers, judge rules" - https://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/sesame-street-puppet-film-happytime-murders-1.18859367
* "Ten Famous Intellectual Property Disputes" - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-famous-intellectual-property-disputes-18521880/
* "Trademark Bully Thwarted: Spots the Space Marine Back Online" - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/02/trademark-bully-thwarted-spots-space-marine-back-online
* "A Cocky Lawyer Reviews #cockygate" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOTlj4MARbo&t=0s

==== Functionality Doctrine ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionality_doctrine

'''Summary:''' "In United States trademark law, the functionality doctrine prevents manufacturers from protecting specific features of a product by means of trademark law. There are two branches of the functionality doctrine: utilitarian functionality and aesthetic functionality. The rationale behind functionality doctrine is that product markets would not be truly competitive if newcomers could not make a product with a feature that consumers demand. Utilitarian functionality provides grounds to deny federal trademark protection to product features which do something useful. Patent law, not trademark, protects useful processes, machines, and material inventions. Patented designs are presumed to be functional until proven otherwise. Aesthetic functionality provides grounds to deny trademark protection to design features which are included to make the product more aesthetically appealing and commercially desirable. Aesthetic features are within the purview of copyright law, which provides protection to creative and original works of authorship."

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(ii):''' "Purpose of Functionality Doctrine" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_ii.html

'''Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure 1202.02(a)(iii)(A)''': "Functionality" - https://www.bitlaw.com/source/tmep/1202_02_a_iii_A.html

'''Internation Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Aesthetic Functionality AFter Louboutin:''' http://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/AestheticFunctionalityAfterLouboutin.aspx

'''Legal Information Institute:''' https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/functionality_doctrine_%28trademark%29

==== "Use in Commerce" ====

'''Summary:''' In law, use in commerce is a very broad and vague definition. "Commerce" does not imply "Commercial" as the two often have different definitions within certain contexts of law. "Use in commerce" definition can vary based on the context, but trademark specific examples are given.

'''Definitions:''' As per Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules §45 (15 U.S.C. §1127): https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-0bf15ce9-7f42-4d7b-9224-c09f64b8c9bc.html

''Commerce.'' The word "commerce" means all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress.

''Use in commerce.'' The term "use in commerce" means the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark. For purposes of this chapter, a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce—

# on goods when—
#* (A) it is placed in any manner on the goods or their containers or the displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto, or if the nature of the goods makes such placement impracticable, then on documents associated with the goods or their sale, and
#* (B) the goods are sold or transported in commerce, and
# on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services.

'''Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure: 0900 - Use in Commerce:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-900d1e7.html

An important note from this section of the TMEP is 901.03: "Offering services via the Internet has been held to constitute use in commerce, since the services are available to a national and international audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access a website. See Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc. v. Bucci, 42 USPQ2d 1430 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) , aff'd, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998) (Table)."

==== Trademark Strengths ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness

'''Summary:''' There are five levels of trademark strengths, each with different requirements that need to be met in order to receive Federal Trademark Protection.
* Fanciful or Coined Marks (Strongest, easiest to gain protection for.)
* Arbitrary Marks
* Suggestive Marks
* Descriptive Marks (Minimum level required for any protection.)
* Generic Words (Weakest, no protection offered.)

'''Internation Trademark Association - Fact Sheets - Trademark Strength:''' http://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics/FactSheets/Pages/TrademarkStrengthFactSheet.aspx

==== Trademark Fair Use ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)

'''Summary:''' "In the United States, trademark law includes a fair use defense, sometimes called "trademark fair use" to distinguish it from the better-known fair use doctrine in copyright. Fair use of trademarks is more limited than that which exists in the context of copyright."

'''Types of Trademark Fair Use:''' There are two main types of fair use in United States Trademark Law
* Nominative Fair Use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark. For example, it is not a trademark violation to refer a printer produced by Casio as a "Casio printer"."
* Descriptive Fair Use: "Using the mark in an ordinary, descriptive manner to describe a product or service. For example, the Paul Simon song, Kodachrome, uses a trademark for a film brand, but within the context of describing film and photographs."

'''(15 U.S.C. §1115) Registration as evidence of right to exclusive use; defenses:''' https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TFSR/current#/current/sec-7cea1de2-b80b-4aab-8760-9a7c325b1ff5.html

"(4) That the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark, of the party’s individual name in his own business, or of the individual name of anyone in privity with such party, or of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin;"

"(8) That the mark is functional"

==== Rogers Test ====
'''Wikipedia Link:''' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

'''Court Listener Link:''' https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/524053/ginger-rogers-v-alberto-grimaldi-mgmua-entertainment-co-and-pea/

'''Summary:''' "Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)[1] is a trademark and intellectual freedom case, known for establishing the "Rogers test" for protecting uses of trademarks that implicate intellectual freedom issues."

As summarized in the article: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/trademark-use-within-expressive-work-must-only-pass-rogers-test-not-likelihood-confu the Rogers Test has two qualifiers to determine if use of a mark is infringing in or upon a creative work:

# "the use of the mark has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever,"
# "or, it has some artistic relevance, but explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.”

'''International Trademark Association - INTABulletin - Litigating the First Amendment Defense in the Video Game Context''' : https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/LitigatingtheFirstAmendmentDefenseintheVideoGameContext.aspx

'''University of Georgia Law, Explicitly Explicit: The Rogers Test and the Ninth Circuit:''' http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl

'''Related Court Cases'''
* E.S.S. Entertainment 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc. - (PDF p. 16, Document p. 207): http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=jipl AND https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1226414/ess-entertainment-2000-v-rock-star-videos/

==== Likelihood of Confusion ====
'''Summary:''' Depending on the district of the court there are a number of factors use when determining whether another mark will cause confusion against another mark. The 9th Circuit Courts use the Eight Sleekcraft Factors.

'''Trademark Well - Likelihood of Confusion Tests by Circuit:''' https://trademarkwell.com/likelihood-of-confusion-tests-by-circuit/

'''AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979):''' https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1715537159001049163

'''Eight Sleekcraft Factors''' ( AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir.1979) )
# the strength of the mark
# the proximity of the goods
# the similarity of the marks
# evidence of actual confusion
# the marketing channels used
# the type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
# the defendant's intent in selecting the mark
# the likelihood of expansion of the product lines

'''The California Blog of Appeal - Eight Means Eight:''' http://www.calblogofappeal.com/2008/02/22/eight-means-eight/

==== Standards ====
* [https://www.aipla.org/ AIPLA American Intellectual Property Law Association]
* [https://www.aipla.org/committees/committee_pages/Trademark-Litigation/Committee%20Documents/Federal%20Circuit%20Map%20of%20Legal%20Standards%20Chart/9th%20Circuit%20Standards%202017.pdf AIPLA - Committees - Trademark Litigation - Legal Standards of the Federal Circuit Courts - 2017 Update: 9th Circuit Court: ]
: This document contains the standards used to determine certain factors regarding Trademark Law within the 9th Circuit courts. These include: Secondary Meaning, Likelihood of Confusion, Initial Interest Confusion, Preliminary Injunction Standard, Laches, Abandonment, Fair Use, Use of Internet Keywords, Secondary Liability, Aesthetic Functionality, Dilution, and Damages
* [http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/model-civil Jury instruction templates for the 9th Circuit]

[[Category:About the Star Control series]]