Talk:Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche
(Redirected from Talk:Stardock Systems Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford)
Latest comment: 3 years ago by SL93 in topic Did you know nomination
Q1: Why isn't there a reception section?
A1: This is a legal case with factual information, not a product review. We are interested in the actual dispute and its impact on the industry, instead of the subjective reactions of video game commentators. The article is centered on the ruling of Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, and the facts required to understand this dispute and its implications. Q2: Why don't we include more press releases, announcements, and forum posts to see what the parties were thinking?
A2: The parties' public comments about the lawsuit are the furthest thing from neutral and should be used sparingly. As a rule of thumb, summarize what the parties did more than what the parties said: briefly summarize the parties activities and main legal arguments in the filings, but avoid undue weight on public statements that are made with the intention of swaying their fan communities. Certain public announcements prior to the legal dispute (starting Fall 2017) are less likely to be intentionally misleading, and are useful to show how the parties understood their rights before emotions were heightened by the lawsuit. Q3: Are references to the legal filings more reliable and neutral than references to comments from the parties?
A3: The legal arguments of the parties are essential to understanding this dispute, and a brief summary is required to give context to the reader. Keep in mind that lawyers are held accountable for false or frivolous claims, facing penalties or even disbarment. This makes summaries of the filings more reliable than other public announcements, as publicity campaigns have no such accountability. A4: Most journalists are not legal experts, and that includes video game journalists. Secondary sources like Ars Technica, Polygon and Rock Paper Shotgun that analyze the parties' legal filings are considered more reliable, as they are exercising more thoroughness and fact-checking, and referring to arguments that are accountable in a court of law. Other sources that refer only to press releases or web announcements are at high risk of repeating misleading, non-neutral information. |
 | A fact from Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 6 January 2021 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
edit- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
( )
... that during Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche, software company Stardock unsuccessfully tried to claim trademarks in the names of aliens from the game Star Control?Source: "Through email, Stardock asked Reiche and Ford for a license to use their character designs from the original games, but the duo repeatedly declined."(https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/02/23/star-control-stardock-lawsuit-countersuit/)Source: "In the months that followed, Stardock applied for more than 20 new trademarks, and filed an amended claim in March 2018 to claim ownership over them. These trademarks included names to alien races from the original Star Control, and the mark The Ur-Quan Masters."(https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/21/17146940/star-control-leak-settlement-offer-stardock-reiche-ford-wardell)
- Comment: Might be at the edge of the 7 day requirement, due to article only hitting the new article announcements yesterday at the relevant Wikipeda project.
Moved to mainspace Created by Jorahm (talk) and modified by DocFreeman24 (talk). Nominated by Shooterwalker (talk) at 23:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC).
@Jorahm:, @DocFreeman24:, @Shooterwalker:. Even if we AGF and IAR on the nomination time, I have to say these proposed hooks both currently fail the WP:DYK basic rule of having the article in question in bold and in the hook. I'll give you a chance to reword them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for giving time to fix that. To keep it short, I went with the WP:COMMONNAME as seen in high quality legal articles like Sega v. Accolade. (Probably worth moving the main page too, as per conventions, if that's not disruptive.) It's hard to distill this into a tight sentence so focusing just on one submission now. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Full review needed. Yoninah (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Let me know if there's anything else I can address. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since you've shortened the case name in this hook ("Stardock v. Reiche and Ford"), shouldn't the article name also be shortened from its current version, "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford"? Also, the lead sentence uses "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". It might be good to strive for consistency across the board. Take a look at MOS:LAW#In the United States for reference. Edge3 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at those naming conventions, I might standardize it across this name across the board board to either "Stardock v. Reiche and Ford" or "Stardock Systems v. Reiche and Ford". Is that compatible with what you're seeing? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- MOS:LAW#In the United States states that we should use Bluebook format when possible. I'm not a lawyer, but I looked at some Bluebook guidelines. I also looked at a case citation for this particular lawsuit [1] and a separate lawsuit involving Stardock in Michigan [2]. Based on my reading of the Bluebook guidelines, and also the two sources I checked, I believe the appropriate name is "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". Note that this is already consistent with the infobox and the lead sentence that you have in the article. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Understood and fixed. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- MOS:LAW#In the United States states that we should use Bluebook format when possible. I'm not a lawyer, but I looked at some Bluebook guidelines. I also looked at a case citation for this particular lawsuit [1] and a separate lawsuit involving Stardock in Michigan [2]. Based on my reading of the Bluebook guidelines, and also the two sources I checked, I believe the appropriate name is "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". Note that this is already consistent with the infobox and the lead sentence that you have in the article. Edge3 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at those naming conventions, I might standardize it across this name across the board board to either "Stardock v. Reiche and Ford" or "Stardock Systems v. Reiche and Ford". Is that compatible with what you're seeing? Shooterwalker (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
- Since you've shortened the case name in this hook ("Stardock v. Reiche and Ford"), shouldn't the article name also be shortened from its current version, "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Paul Reiche III and Robert Frederick Ford"? Also, the lead sentence uses "Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche". It might be good to strive for consistency across the board. Take a look at MOS:LAW#In the United States for reference. Edge3 (talk) 16:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Article was nominated 8-9 days after creation, but the primary author (Jorahm) is a new contributor to Wikipedia, therefore I agree that the deadline should be waived per WP:IAR. Article is long, and no copyright or paraphrasing issues detected. QPQ not required because the nominator (Shooterwalker) has fewer than 5 credits.
The hook states that the trademarks were "in the names of aliens from the game Star Control". Would it be more accurate to say "alien races" instead? Also, where is this supported in the source? Polygon states that the trademarks included ones for The Ur-Quan Masters, Star Control, and "Yehat". But from that list, "Yehat" appears to be the only one concerning an alien race. Could you please clarify? Edge3 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Had to parse the article a bit myself. Trademarks are in words and phrases (assuming it's not a logo), so that might be why the article has this picky phrasing. It probably is more accurate to say "Trademark in the names of aliens", but I think you're still mostly accurate by saying "Trademarks in the aliens", since it's meant to be a hook for people to read further. I might suggest "Trademarks in the names of alien races from the game Star Control"" or "Trademarks in the names of alien characters from the game Star Control".
- In the article, a source says "Stardock are now blocking them from continuing development using any of Star Control's familiar races, locations and names (branded or otherwise), all of which Stardock is now laying claim to." And one of the outcomes of the dispute was that Stardock finally dropped the Trademark claims over the alien names. A google search brought up this article at the Star Control community wiki where they link to all the Trademark applications filed with the US Patent Office. So we can consider the statement both verifiable (in the article's sources) and verified (in the source's sources). Shooterwalker (talk) 20:16, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I think I was confused by "in the names of" because it could also mean "on behalf of". I think better phrasing might be "for the names of aliens". We can also keep it at "aliens" instead of "alien races" or "alien characters", as the vagueness might prompt more people to click on the hook.
- ALT1: ... that in Stardock Systems, Inc. v. Reiche, software company Stardock unsuccessfully tried to claim trademarks for the names of aliens from the game Star Control?
- What do you think? Edge3 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- That reads much better, and in hindsight the original did sound grammatically awkward. Thanks for helping out with this. I think we're good to proceed? Shooterwalker (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes!!! ALT1 is good to go. Congrats to all who were involved in this article. Edge3 (talk) 21:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks again and I'll keep an eye out for it! Shooterwalker (talk) 22:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. I think I was confused by "in the names of" because it could also mean "on behalf of". I think better phrasing might be "for the names of aliens". We can also keep it at "aliens" instead of "alien races" or "alien characters", as the vagueness might prompt more people to click on the hook.
