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

Community Q+A guidelines

Editor behavior

• Work together. Collaborate. Be constructive.
• Revert edits with reference to the guidelines. Defer to the guidelines. Change guidelines only with discussion.
• Where there is a dispute, discuss and come to a consensus. Assume good faith.
• Don't assume good faith if an editor repeatedly ignores guidelines.
• Bad faith editors are not welcome.

Verification in reliable sources

• All statements on this page should be verified in reliable sources, using footnote citations.
• The most reliable sources are statutes, neutral legal experts, and news outlets with editorial oversight and fact-checking
• Evidence submitted by the parties (Stardock, Paul Reiche III, and Fred Ford) is assumed to be reliable and accurate, under penalty of law.
• Public statements by the parties are only relevant and reliable for understanding how the dispute has been represented by the parties.
• Clearly distinguish between types of sources, for the sake of the readers.
• Third party forum posts, blogs, and opinion pieces are NOT reliable. In rare exceptions, they might be relevant as evidence of a legal issue. Use and mark them accordingly.
• Statements in the Q+A without reliable sources should be verified to reliable sources, or removed.

Neutrality

• Maintain a neutral point of view. Even if you have strong feelings, the Q+A should not. Let the reliable sources speak.
• Where there is potential bias, discuss the best way to maintain neutrality. Consider replacing with better sources, comparing the sources, adding a note, or removing altogether.
• Clearly note areas of disagreement, to distinguish them from widely agreed facts.
• Evidence and statements published by the parties (Stardock, Paul Reiche III, and Fred Ford) should be marked clearly and used with care.
• Speculation should be careful, clear, and limited. Refer to relevant outcomes described by the parties, with analysis from reliable sources as much as possible.

Readability

• Utilize internet archives to protect sources from being deleted or modified as the legal dispute continues.
• Use quotes and/or images to highlight areas under dispute.
• Don't overuse quotes and/or images where footnotes will do, particularly for issues not under dispute.
• Strive to be concise. Avoid redundancy.
• As this wiki stabilizes, we will move these guidelines to make the Q+A more readable.

Basic background

• who, what, why...

Copyright

How does the DMCA takedown process work?

• https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

Timeline of Star Control history

Creation and release of Star Control 1-3: 1988-1999

• 1988 agreement
• Games

Disappearance, legacy, and re-emergence: 1999-2013

• Interviews
• Best of
• GOG

Timeline of legal dispute

Stardock's new game: 2013-2017

• bankruptcy and sale
• development

Private and public dispute: 2017-present

• public statements
• claims
• settlement offers

List of References

Court Received

• PacerMonitor
• CourtListener
• Stardock Legal Complaint
• Fred and Paul Counter-Complaint
• Stardock Amended Legal Complaint

Fred and Paul Provided

• Dogar and Kazon - “THERE WERE MANY GREAT BATTLES... AND SOME OF THEM INVOLVED LAWYERS.”
• Dogar and Kazon - Star Control® I, II and III aren't for sale on GOG.com anymore -- How come?
• Dogar and Kazon - Stardock Claims We Are Not the Creators of Star Control. Sues Us. WTF?!
• Dogar and Kazon - .... Report From Surface ....
  • GOG/Atari E-mail Conversation
• Dogar and Kazon - Strange Settlement on an Alien Planet
• Dogar and Kazon - Nope and Nope
  • Fred and Paul's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 22, 2018
  • Stardock's Proposed Settlement Agreement, March 12, 2018
  • Stardock's Proposed Schedule D

Stardock

• Stardock Star Control Forums - Q+A regarding Star Control and Paul and Fred