|
Kalman posted:Copyright and TM lawyer is what you need. Patents are going to be minimally relevant to the copying issue.  I wish to make the bare minimum changes necessary in order to replicate the game online. If that means I need to change the rules to be considered a derivative work, then fine. I want to capture the spirit of the game and profit from doing it. I don't see the board game company investing any money in bringing this idea into fruition, nor are they willing to license it, and my free time is extremely valuable to me.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 03:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
_areaman posted:
In the event that you were sued for this, they could find your post, stating: quote:I want to take a board game, develop it online, and charge money for it. I don't want to pay a dime to the company that produces the board game. They're telling you that that was a very dumb thing to post.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:13
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I want to take a board game, develop it online, and charge money for it. I don't want to pay a dime to the company that produces the board game. _areaman posted:I wish to make the bare minimum changes necessary in order to replicate the game online. If that means I need to change the rules to be considered a derivative work, then fine. I want to capture the spirit of the game and profit from doing it. I don't see the board game company investing any money in bringing this idea into fruition, nor are they willing to license it, and my free time is extremely valuable to me. This business model only works if you are already rich enough to buy or bury (in litigation) the actual rights holder when they object to your theft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 06:28
|
|
|
_areaman posted:
Copyright includes the right to exclude others from making derivative works. So, nope, try again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
_areaman posted:I want to take a board game, develop it online, and charge money for it. I don't want to pay a dime to the company that produces the board game. Not going to happen. quote:I know companies can get away with doing this if they make some changes. quote:For instance, Zynga made Words with Friends, which is Scrabble with one tile's point value changed and the bonus square locations moved. My plan is to entirely re-theme the game, which is graphics intensive, by changing all images and rewriting all text. Not good enough. quote:Is there any definitive definition of what I need to do to get away with this? I will definitely pay a lawyer in addition to whatever anyone says here, but what kind of lawyer should I look for? Someone skilled in copyright law? Thanks for your time. You're welcome to pay me, but the answer isn't going to change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
Belated thanks to joat mon and the milk machine for answers!
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
areaman, here's your practical problem even if you make it "different enough", and I'm assuming the copyright holder is still an active company: If it makes money you're going to get sued regardless of how different you make it. And that lawsuit will eat up your profits so that you don't make any money. If it doesn't make money, then it won't draw lawsuit attention... but it still doesn't make any money. Both routes lead to no money. It's not going to be a for-profit venture for you. In other words, the legal answer to how different it should be to win the lawsuit is irrelevant. You can win the lawsuit and still end up filing bankruptcy. If you make money, you will get sued. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Apr 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 14:48
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:areaman, here's your practical problem even if you make it "different enough", and I'm assuming the copyright holder is still an active company: Clearly no one here has ever played words with friends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Clearly no one here has ever played words with friends. Guess what happens when someone without Zynga amounts of money tries to make a game like Words with Friends?
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Yup:joat mon posted:This business model only works if you are already rich enough to buy or bury (in litigation) the actual rights holder when they object to your theft.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Defending yourself against a federal copyright suit would cost over $50,000.00 and most likely way more, just to get some numbers out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
I think I might lose my job and I'm not sure what to do. I have worked here for over 2 years and have never been reprimanded for anything. I have recently had this feeling that my loving awful boss was going to try and edge me out though. Last week I apparently faxed some patient information (this is a medical office) to someone, and the information was for the wrong patient. This ended up with me getting written up and told how lucky I was to not get fired for it, even though our HIPAA officer had told me it was understandable human error and that I handled the error properly. Then, right after being written up, I supposedly did the same thing again (I do not believe this at all) and was sent home and told I was being put "under investigation". My boss refused to show me what I did or give me any info other than that I "dialed an area code wrong" when sending out a fax. She also told me that she has no idea whether I am being put on paid leave or not, that she has no idea how long it will take, and no I can not call and check on the status of the investigation. This whole thing is incredibly hosed and I have no idea what to do. Help? I am in Colorado.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Colorado, like most states, has 'at will' employment, meaning you can quit or be fired without notice for any reason or for no reason at all. There are some exceptions: if you have an employment contract that lays out specific termination procedures, if you are part of a union contract, or if the reason for being fired is because of your race, gender, religion, disability, ethnic background and maybe a couple other protected statuses CO may have. Most likely there's nothing you can do to prevent being fired. (which in the longer run sounds like a good thing) Where the facts of your situation may come into play is if you apply for unemployment benefits and your employer challenges it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Where the facts of your situation may come into play is if you apply for unemployment benefits and your employer challenges it. I've had multiple clients who were told by their job "take a leave of absence, don't call us, we'll call you". Then two weeks later they're fired for cause for no show/no call. The fired chump can't prove what they were told, but the employer can prove the no call/no show. "No you can't call" sounds like bullshit to me. I'd find a person in HR that isn't a scumbag, and call them nearly everyday just to check in. You don't want to annoy them, in the hopes that you are reinstated. But verify your status with HR regularly. That way you have proof you didn't abandon the job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I agree, saving your job is likely out of your control. You'll either lose it or keep it. But you wanna position yourself so that you're not screwed out of unemployment. If you're just laid off, you probably qualify for unemployment. If they fire you for good cause, then you can be denied unemployment. So many employers try to fabricate cause. Yeah, I realize that CO is an at will state and Lawyering up will probably do nothing. It's the circumstances and vagueness that just seem unfair and ridiculous. I'll talk to HR tomorrow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
That is something I've always wondered about. I understand at will means they can fire you without cause or for a stupid cause so long as it isn't something protected by law. If a company were to put something demonstrably false (but not protected) on the pink slip, that has no bearing on employment and only comes into play if uc is sought, correct? If that's the case, how do people win wrongful termination suits that don't arise from unlawful discrimination? I'd expect if the law said at will, there would be no wrongful termination outside discrimination. Are those suits fancy contract disputes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
Apartment lease question in Texas. If two people hold the lease jointly (both named as leaseholders, signed when the lease started), can one of them add an approved occupant to the lease without the signature/permission of the other? If not, and it was done anyway, what would the potential remedies be?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
My younger brother had a salaried management job. For whatever reason, they decided to reduce him to a part-time hourly position. He lives in MA. Any ideas on how this can impact his ability to collect unemployment if he does or doesn't leave?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Gounads posted:My younger brother had a salaried management job. For whatever reason, they decided to reduce him to a part-time hourly position. He lives in MA. Any ideas on how this can impact his ability to collect unemployment if he does or doesn't leave? The way MA calculates unemployment is based on the 2 highest quarters of wages over the last 4 quarters. As long as your cousin doesn't stay part time for 6 months(before getting laid off), he should be fine. However, if I was him, I'd be looking for a new job ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 14:31
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:The way MA calculates unemployment is based on the 2 highest quarters of wages over the last 4 quarters. As long as your cousin doesn't stay part time for 6 months(before getting laid off), he should be fine. However, if I was him, I'd be looking for a new job ASAP. How about eligibility? If he works for a month or 2 part-time, and then leaves. Is he eligible? What if he leaves right away?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
In PA he would not be since quitting is a no-no. But all states have their own unemployment rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 15:38
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In PA he would not be since quitting is a no-no. But all states have their own unemployment rules. If an employer can take a salaried person to hourly, pay them crap, and just wait for them to quit, why would any company ever have an employee get unemployment?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 15:49
|
|
|
Just in the PA context, work would be available and the employee would not be taking it, therefore no eligibility for unemployment (Though they may be eligible for partial unemployment depending on their wages). I suppose you could make a constructive discharge argument, though those are weak outside the discrimination context. It is easier just to fire people honestly (ie make up some reason why they are fired and deny their unemployment.) MOst people give up at this point or gently caress up their appeal. This is PA, not Mass. I have no idea about Massachusetts. euphronius fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 15:52
|
|
|
Gounads posted:How about eligibility? If he works for a month or 2 part-time, and then leaves. Is he eligible? What if he leaves right away? He has to make under a certain threshold at part time for it to be a unemployment claimable event. He should speak to an unemployment counselor.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 16:14
|
|
|
Gounads posted:My younger brother had a salaried management job. For whatever reason, they decided to reduce him to a part-time hourly position. He lives in MA. Any ideas on how this can impact his ability to collect unemployment if he does or doesn't leave? Give him this link to the site for Massachusetts L&WD for unemployment. Lots of info, including FAQ, forms, and contact numbers. http://www.mass.gov/lwd/unemployment-insur/
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 16:19
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:That is something I've always wondered about. I understand at will means they can fire you without cause or for a stupid cause so long as it isn't something protected by law. If a company were to put something demonstrably false (but not protected) on the pink slip, that has no bearing on employment and only comes into play if uc is sought, correct? If that's the case, how do people win wrongful termination suits that don't arise from unlawful discrimination? I'd expect if the law said at will, there would be no wrongful termination outside discrimination. Are those suits fancy contract disputes? Contracts can be part of it. There can be implied contracts, usually from employee handbooks, but most handbooks specifically say that the handbook doesn't convey any rights to the employee. Violations of public policy is a very nebulous concept that is essentially the "that's f'ed up" exception. An easier to establish form of public policy argument that is recognized by few states is a breach of good faith and/or fair dealing. Egregious conduct (think criminal law violations) toward the employee, retaliation for reporting illegality or for refusing to do illegal acts can also be the basis of a 'wrongful termination' lawsuit. These are all very jurisdiction dependent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
Legal question in West Virginia. A friend of mine got divorced last fall and has a 50/50 split on child custody. She's also a teacher. This summer while school is out her ex-husband is planning on leaving the kids with their grandmother while he's at work on his days. She's wondering why he wouldn't leave them with her other than him being a dick. Can he do that? Is there anything she can do? Or is it just how the law works?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Gounads posted:If an employer can take a salaried person to hourly, pay them crap, and just wait for them to quit, why would any company ever have an employee get unemployment? It does happen. It depends on how much an employer wants to fight about things. My boss has done it at an old work place. We had a woman on maternity leave. This offended him or some such. So when she came back their was 3 days available this week. Then 2 next week. Then 1.5 the week after. She got the hint fairly quick. I have no idea how much unemployment ends up costing employers, most of them probably either factor it as a cost of doing business or just figure it takes just as much man hours to gently caress people over as it does to just pay it. Plus its pretty bad for morale when you see what is happening. jassi007 fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:My boss has done it at an old work place. We had a woman on maternity leave. This offended him or some such. So when she came back their was 3 days available this week. Then 2 next week. Then 1.5 the week after. She got the hint fairly quick. Just based on those facts, that is blatantly obvious unlawful employment discrimination. Which is would lead to totally different outcomes at the unemployment level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 18:47
|
|
|
Retardog posted:Legal question in West Virginia. Not a lawyer, but why couldn't he do that? Is it so terrible that the kids get to see their grandma three times a week?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
If mother had more custody, she could possible ask for more child support. That is a guess.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
^^ Yup, I agree.Retardog posted:Legal question in West Virginia. In general, on his days he can use whatever in the world daycare he wants. He could use grandma, a neighbor, a bum off the street, etc as long as they're a non-criminal adult. My assumptions are that grandma wants to see the kids, and that he wants mornings and evenings without interacting with mom. Another reason he'd want to force is is that child support can hinge on the 50/50 split, and if he agreed for her to keep them in the summer it would unbalance the equation. In his mind, she could turn around a year later and file for increased support. She might not do that, but that's a legit worry for him. She can't complain about his choice in daycare unless he's abandoning them with grandma for extended periods of time, or if the caregiver is abusive/unsafe/criminal. In general, she should talk to him about a shift in the custody where he has a little more during the school year and her a little more in the summer. That way she gets more summer custody, but the 50/50 split is maintained.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 19:20
|
|
|
Ah, gotcha. Makes sense. I hadn't thought about the increased child support angle. Thanks for the quick replies!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 19:30
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Just based on those facts, that is blatantly obvious unlawful employment discrimination. Which is would lead to totally different outcomes at the unemployment level. Not a lawyer, and I may be stating it more simply than it happened, but suffice it to say that what happened was he hired someone to do the job while she was gone. When she came back, he told her that her job was there (as it had to be) but he could not give her full time hours. Her hours were fiddled with based on what he felt he needed her per week, and eventually she found full time employment elsewhere and left. His goal with cutting her hours was to get her to leave. IANAL but the reason I posted was to illustrate that at will employment is a situation where they find a reason to get rid of you and do so if that is their goal. I understand that not enough work is used frequently as a way to justify reduced hours/layoffs and there is basically no effective legal recourse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
jassi007 posted:His goal with cutting her hours was to get her to leave. This is pregnancy discrimination. Unlawful. Unlawful!!! http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I'm in California, San Bernardino county to be specific. My employer from August until the last week of March consistently paid the entire staff 5 days "late". I have an e-mail to my supervisor dated from august explaining my concerns. I was told the employer contacted an attorney and saw no issues. I think they are full of it. Basic facts are that in August pay transitioned from once every other friday to a bi-monthly system. Pay periods were to run from 1-15th and from the 16th to the end of the month (29.30.31). Pay checks were cut on the 30th (or last day of the month) for 1-15 and on the 15th for days 16-30. California law seems to very specifically state that employers have ten(10) days to pay wages owed, thus we ought to have been paid no later than the 10th and the 26th. It further mentions a "late penalty" (section 203) for wages that are intentionally paid late, although it mostly describes situations with wages paid upon termination. In any case, it claims up to 30 days worth of daily pay may be accrued. For my situation, that would net 2880 dollars. I also am considering a claim for unpaid vacation time upon resignation (approximately 1500 dollars worth) and unpaid bonus (100$). There are approximately 50 employees of this company who have also been receiving their checks late. I called 3 law offices and none of them agreed to take the case. I asked one office "if they thought it was even appropriate that I be seeking legal representation" and (probably a paralegal or receptionist) told me that I should just file a claim with the DLSE. Can anyone give an OPINION on whether the conduct in regards to the pay periods is worthy of the "late penalty" described by California law. I recently resigned my upper level management position due to very poor treatment and I would like to really like to gently caress these guys in the rear end. I feel confident that I could make these claims in small claim court for myself*, but I'd really like to class action their rear end in superior court if that is possible. I can see potentially 30-50,000 dollars in liability if late penalties can be assessed. Also, can anyone refer me to an attorney who might be willing to take the case? Or let me know if I'm high as a kite and need to abandon any hope of this. My presumption about the 3 turn downs is that they simply were looking for bigger fish to fry, not that my case was baseless. EDIT: *Additionally, when I resigned my position I had a verbal agreement with the operations VP as well as the GM of the location I was transferring to that I would be a full time employee (as I have been for 4 years) and would work only at that particular location. I am now only being given part time hours and they attempted to transfer me to a location out of the city I live in. I have a current claim with unemployment pending, but I was wondering if I have any legal options in regards to this. Angry Hippo fucked around with this message at 20:51 on Apr 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
euphronius posted:This is pregnancy discrimination. Unlawful. Unlawful!!! http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/pregnancy.cfm No doubt. But aren't things like that hard to prove? I thought that was the whole bad side of at will employment. Your employer can be racist sexist etc. but as long as he produces some other reason for your termination you are basically boned.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
A few years ago, I agreed to be a sperm donor for a gay friend of mine, when the time comes that she wants a kid. Recently, they've been dropping hints that this might happen soon. The girlfriend would be carrying the kid, not my friend. All three of us live in Pennsylvania. We haven't had an official talk on this whole thing yet, though. From what little we've talked about it in passing, I don't think that they want to go through a physician for this. I've done some research on my end, but is there anything you legal guys think I need to know going into this? My main concern is an eventual breakup, and getting hit for child support.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:16
|
|
|
Go RV! posted:A few years ago, I agreed to be a sperm donor for a gay friend of mine, when the time comes that she wants a kid. Recently, they've been dropping hints that this might happen soon. The girlfriend would be carrying the kid, not my friend. All three of us live in Pennsylvania. That could be a big deal, as haven't there been cases of single women receiving child support from sperm donors when they went through a private clinic? I think the law doesn't look at it so much as how the child was conceived, just that the child needs assistance and will get it. You really really need to contact a lawyer about this. A friend of mine is a lesbian, and she and her partner decided to have kids; they went with a straight friend who agreed to be the sperm donor. I don't think they went through any doctor office either, but the guy was not as worried as his girlfriend was, because even though he trusted the lesbian couple, things can change. We all live in AZ, and legally speaking if they wanted to hit him for child support, they easily could. Any reason why they don't want to go through a physician? Does anyone in your group intend to contact a lawyer about this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
Really bad idea. I'll admit I don't even know the first thing about the law regarding artificial insemination, but the course of action you are considering sounds like hypotheticals they make up in law school that are purposefully exaggerated in order to illustrate a point. Paternity standards probably vary by jurisdiction, but "biological father" is probably enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 00:25
|
|
