View Full Version : Petition to Grumman/Northrop to get off of PF!

04-07-2005, 02:01 AM

Here is the link. Maybe someone with legal background will put it into words for us to sign. Before the thing is pulled worldwide, and off the web for good.

04-07-2005, 02:07 AM
Didn't Ubi already settle this problem?

04-07-2005, 02:46 AM
Yeah i thought UBI had sorted this out, but it seems not. I have also heard rumours that the descendants of Reginald Mitchell are denying Oleg the use of the Spitfire Mk1 for his Battle of Britain game. If this doesnt get sorted it will probably kill WW2 sims for good which will be extremely sad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

04-07-2005, 03:02 AM
Don't worry about the spitfire, that was taking the piss because of aprils fools day.

Bad link to the petition, not direct,
Nice to sign but will it make a difference with all those litigant happy US firms, I think not. The best thing we can hope for is a lawyers convention on the Titanic.http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-11/890963/PhantomSignature3.JPG

04-07-2005, 03:15 AM
Direct link would be nice, could'nt find it, But found this one. Cracked me up.lol


04-07-2005, 04:44 AM
I'll sign it if somebody is able to draw something up in legalese.

As far as USN ships are concerned, 1C/UBISoft can do what they want. Here, N-G don't have a leg to stand on. USN ships were DESIGNED by BuShips, the Navy's own design bureau so any copyright/patents would rest with them, not N-G. N-G yards merely BUILT the ships- basically the USN handed the yards the drawings and the shipyards built the ships according to those drawings. The yards were NOT involved in the design process.

04-07-2005, 05:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by No1_Reggie:
Yeah i thought UBI had sorted this out, but it seems not. I have also heard rumours that the descendants of Reginald Mitchell are denying Oleg the use of the Spitfire Mk1 for his Battle of Britain game. If this doesnt get sorted it will probably kill WW2 sims for good which will be extremely sad. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was an April fools Joke,, sheeesh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

04-07-2005, 05:26 AM
What do they say; "a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing"

We don't know the full story. We amy never know the full story. There may still be legal issues to resolve. There may still be ongoing negotiations.

A well meaning but half informed petition, even if it is signed by 10-15,000 gamers is going to do very little anyway. It will let N/G know we are here and we care but if I was a company that size, with its type of market, I really wouldn't be too concerned.

Internet petitions are of dubious value anyway. The largest internet petition of all time is currently running in China in an attempt to prevent the UN giving Japan a seat on the permanent council. So far its at 25 MILLION signatures!

I think organising a petition without an actual proper understanding of the facts is an exercise in futility.

04-07-2005, 05:31 AM
The only thing worse than a f*cking lawyer is a f*cking American lawyer...

What absolute a$$holes...


04-07-2005, 06:15 AM
"The only thing worse than a f*cking lawyer is a f*cking American lawyer...

What absolute a$$holes..."

Obviously never been to Mexico or Turkey...

Wonder how long the thread would last if the comment had been about a French, British or German lawyer...it's trendy to make an insult to Americans...

04-07-2005, 06:27 AM
Insult British lawyers all you like mate, most of them can't read anyway... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

04-07-2005, 06:59 AM
Yeah UBI "settled" more like sold out and made 1C pay for it with their money. I would love to hear what "deal" UBI made. If it was indeed taken care of I would think Oleg could continue to model at least existing planes and mods. ohh and by the way IBTL. LOL

04-07-2005, 09:50 AM
Again this is a thread that will do us no good what so ever, for sure not when we have people talikng **** about firms, UBI or whatever.
You know i really though we were past this stage, but clearly there are still some "children" out there that have to rant on.

If you really wanner help this product, keep flying and if you wanner change something in it, report it to 1C when you find some flaws. Saying things like: Oleg we want the patch now, Oleg just ditch UBI and find new publisher or do it your self or f**k all the laywers or screw NORTHDROP.... or something along the lines of that, are of no use to anyone. It only shows that some of the community are STILL acting childrish and really need to grow up.

04-07-2005, 09:59 AM
The place to go with your complaint is not to the weasels (lawyers & MBAs) who run these corporations, but to their primary customer, the US Government (and it's NATO & other allies). Write (do not email) your President, Congressman or Senator, with a clear explanation of your complaint and do not make threats. A pile of letters with a similar message is tangible evidence of voter/taxpayer aggravation-it has much greater effect upon the consciousness of the political animal, who has yet to come to grips with the reality of electronic communication.

Simply tell them what upsets you, why it upsets you, and ask for regulatory/legislative relief.

Northrop-Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, and Boeing all do most of their business with or through the Department of Defense, which is regulated by your elected representatives. Congress can write regulations or requirements for future defense contracts limiting the contractors' rights to images or representations of past, present, or future operational military equipment to sane levels.

In the past, Grumman was notably cooperative with amateur historians, modelers and plastic modeling companies as part of their public relations program. Most of these companies originally had a similar philosophy. They understood that the young people who made up the bulk of these groups' markets were potential future employees or military customers.

Besides, it's really cool to see the products you make being copied in miniature and played with by your kids and their friends.

Unfortunately, like most defense engineering companies, the control of the company has passed to corporate types who can't see beyond the possibility of a short term profit. Their backstabbing culture is such that you have to force them to act in their own best long term interests (I am speaking as a long time employee of such a company-I know all too well of what I speak).

The only ones who can make these jerks act like resonsible adults are the government agencies that they depend on for their profits. These agencies, are in turn dependent (through your elected representatives) upon you the taxpayer for their funds.

You have some influence. Use it on someone who is predisposed to listen and act on your behalf.



04-07-2005, 11:14 AM
That's the most sensible post I've read in a long time Horseback.

04-07-2005, 11:36 AM
Glad to see someone finally acted and put up a petition, I'm on my way to sign it now. Nice post, btw, horseback.

04-07-2005, 01:43 PM
As it reads fellas. You will notice how he refers to PF in it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tom Cleaver:

By: Tom Cleaver

News flash: the new Tamiya 1/32 F-16, which is being marketed as the €œLockheed-Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon,€ is the product of a licensing agreement between Tamiya and Lockheed-Martin, as stated on the first page of the kit instructions.

Folks, there€s no need for me to run around yelling €œThe Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!€

It€s fallen.

This agreement by the World€s Largest Maker of Plastic Model Kits is the precedent the aircraft manufacturers have been waiting for. Up to now, all the kit manufacturers were united in refusing to deal with the airplane companies on this issue. Whether they might have prevailed in court if pressed was always a question no one could know, but now we do know. With this precedent, any aircraft manufacturer operating under U.S. Copyright Law will only need to serve papers on any kit manufacturer commanding them to cease and desist or appear in a U.S. Federal Court - and they win.

This really does signal the end of the limited-run kit industry and the aftermarket industry, not to mention the small eastern European companies - at least as regards the production of models of airplanes originally designed and built in the United States.

It€s not because of the cost of the licensing fees. That they could deal with.

It€s the insurance.

In the weeks since I first published my editorial here on this topic, I have been Receiving An Education on the subject from a number of knowledgeable sources. The most knowledgeable of them all is a guy whose name you would recognize were I to publish it here, a guy who has had an impeccable reputation for his beautiful limited run kits for a long time. Since he has requested I not use his name (since he doesn€t want to draw attention to himself by the corporate legal departments), you€re going to have to trust my journalist€s judgment that he is indeed a model industry €œDeep Throat.€

As he explained it to me, when a company like Lockheed-Martin comes calling and offers a licensing agreement, the licensee also agrees to obtain Product Liability Insurance. Not for the licensee, for the licensor!! This is in order to protect the huge deep-pockets corporation and hold them harmless when Little Johnny decides to find out if the pieces in Mr. Licensee€s kit are edible or not and gets a scare when Mommy and Daddy have to take him to the Emergency Room to have his stomach pumped.

As €œDeep Throat€ explained it to me, the licensing fee is no problem - it adds cost, but not a prohibitive sum. But product liability insurance is nearly unobtainable nowadays, and it€s definitely unobtainable at a price a small company can afford without pricing themselves out of business trying to cover the additional cost.

For the World€s Biggest Plastic Kit Manufacturer, the liability insurance is No Big Deal. For MPM, for Roden, for all the others, it€s going to be another matter entirely.

This is not just a problem for those of us who build little plastic model airplanes. It has killed the limited-run car model business. It has put a stop to the guy who likes playing the €œPacific Fighters€ Flight Sim game and wants to write his own program for an airplane. In fact, €œPacific Fighters€ has stopped publishing any upgrades that include Northrop, Grumman, Boeing, North American, Curtiss, Chance-Vought, Lockheed or Martin aircraft - which makes it pretty hard to play €œPacific Fighters€ indeed.

I guess I€m lucky that I like British airplanes, since British Aerospace isn€t covered (yet!) by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But as far as American airplanes are concerned...

Personally, I€ve just bought my last Tamiya kit. And no, that€s not an invitation or a suggestion that any of you might want to come to a similar conclusion, since that would mean I was Advocating A Conspiracy In Restraint Of Trade under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Disclaimer: the commentary in this and other articles is that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management. Please direct comments to the author or the Forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

04-07-2005, 02:22 PM
I have a color HI res photo of an Early US Atlas launch in the cali desert taken by my father a GE Aerospace Engineer im gonna post it on the internet. I hope they come to talk to me about my not using thier legal disclaimer **** I'll hand them thier ***!!!!

04-07-2005, 04:05 PM
Speaking as someone who just barely evaded a royal *** reaming by a few lawyers, I just have to pipe in here as a reality check.

With the size of NG, you can be sure they have an in-house legal department. This in-house legal department likely has someone whose full time responsibility it is to ensure nobody is infringing on their copyrights, such as the use of the name of their company. This person looks around, finds any uses of the name or plane models etc, and if the situations they find are of a commercial nature (like 1C/UBI for example), they fill in a few fields of a form letter, and voila, they have the legal action started once again. They don't care who is using the name, they don't care that this is a community of people that bow down and worship the virtual planes they're "flying", they don't care if the company is run by a group of widowed pregnant housewives on welfare. The fact is, someone is infringing on their rights.

It's probably pretty easy to get away with use of a company's patented name for hobby purposes, but if you're making money, guess what, it's copyright infringement or whatever, and you're making $$, so NG wants their share.

My point is that to lawyers, the rules are clear, infringement is pretty obvious, and it's their job to rectify the situation. They will do so whether you sign a petition or not because it's what they're hired to do, period.

The lawyers may even go home at the end of the day and fly PF, but that doesn't mean they want to drop their suit. Business is business.

IMO, UBI as publisher of this game, should have used their own legal department and brains to avoid this situation in the first place.

It's a shame if Oleg has to deal with this, but hey, if you're making a dime from using a copyrighted name, it's likely just another case of infringement, plain & simple. The petition won't be filed in court, be sure.

04-07-2005, 07:26 PM
This should be made public, and have alot of senators on it. It is absurd to BAR U.S. Fighters from Computer Games, which is about what Grumman, etc... are actually doing. They are wiping out the memory of U.S. Aerial Warfare. I would think the U.S. AF, Navy,and Marines would have somthing to say about THAT.

IE: Yea we have spitfires and Meschershmidts, but no Grumman A/C or any US partisipation, as though the reality of US partisipation DOES NOT EXIST, never existed. Grumman & co just may be wiping clean US combat history with the absoulute legal BS......

Again, dont you think the AF, Navy, Marines would not like this? Yes, grumman may have a copyright claim, THATS NOT THE POINT, it DOESNT MATTER, if they get REALLY BAD PUBLICITY. They will ROLL OVER LIKE A COCKERSPANIAL if confronted with thier BS ****, thats the nice thing about democracy, while we still have it. Use it or Loose it, a petition is the first step...Then Computer sim magazine, warbird magazines, Cable A/C shows, Military magazines, the marines have their own magazine, Get an article in that, and Grumman gets 5 or so calls, they DROP THE SUIT..

C,mon, help me out here....... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif