TGT Soft sues Stardock (just in time for the holidays :( )

Friday, December 19, 2003 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk

Well it looks like the folks at TGT Soft are in the holiday spirit (not!).  On Wednesday Stardock received a lawsuit from TGT Soft that was filed in Louisiana.

 

The lawsuit essentially asks for a declaration that TGT Soft can use Stardock’s IconPackager theme format without liability. 

 

This incident began last month with the first beta of Style XP 2.0 which had a button labeled “Add an Icon Pack” which when pressed opened a dialog in which they could load a .iptheme or .ip file (IconPackager files). We were fairly annoyed that 1) They would try to compete with IconPackager/Object Desktop by using IconPackager files (remember, they sell this thing), 2) That they didn’t even give us credit for our icon packaging format but instead referred to them as “icon packs” as if .ipthemes were some generic term created by the ASCII group or something and 3) They didn’t even create icon packages but rather planned to just exploit the popularity of IconPackager which we’ve worked hard and long on for many years to make popular.

 

We informed them that this was unacceptable and we would defend our rights either technically or legally if necessary. If they want to compete with Object Desktop or IconPackager they would need to come up with their own format that they have to support and promote.  If they want to put out an icon changing program, that’s fine. But to copy our format and use it so that they can undercut the price of our software is unacceptable and we believe, illegal. 

 

In subsequent correspondence, we even offered to license them the use of our format for a modest royalty (remember, this isn’t a freeware program we’re talking about, they’re selling Style XP for $20 a pop). Their response was to reject that and file a lawsuit that seems to be designed to force us to let them use/convert our IconPackager theme format without any compensation. 

 

Apparently they would have it where we would be the ones to provide the software to create and support icon packages (which is where most of the development/marketing costs have come from) and they would just reap the benefits financially. Note that Style XP 2.0 currently does not seem to have the ability to actually create icon packages/sets. Only apply them.

 

They have subsequently come up with their own format (.iconset) but since they can’t actually create .iconset files from their program, they rely on a new program they’ve made, IconTranslate, which seems to exist primarily to convert IconPackager themes to their “.IconSet” format. And once installed turns on a feature in Style XP to read IconPackager themes directly from within their program.

 

Picture this scenario then: Someone buys Style XP instead of IconPackager or Object Desktop costing us income. Then their customers would come to WinCustomize.com to download icon packages to use with their program, costing us more money since we pay for the bandwidth.  We pay the costs, they make the money, and to top it off, they’re suing us, costing us legal expenses.

 

To us, this situation is akin to someone asking a skinner to let them port their skin to a different platform and if the skinner says no then turning around and suing them to try to force the skinner to let them port their skin. Stardock fully intends to defend its intellectual property rights.  The implications if TGT Soft were to win are far reaching not just to Stardock but intellectual property holders everywhere including skin and theme authors.

 

We generally feel that people who create stuff should have a say over how that stuff is used. Stardock worked long and hard to make IconPackager a success. Its popularity is not due to marketing but due to the hard work over a long period of time (ex: making it possible to create and apply icons on Windows 95, Windows 95 + IE4, Windows 98, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP).  Doing that was not easy as early IconPackager users can attest to. It was very hard to make IconPackager work reliably on the many different versions of Windows, different interactions with the OS and Internet Explorer, etc. But this was part of the effort necessary to make IconPackager successful and why it’s the most popular, by far, icon packaging technology available.  On top of that, Stardock has paid many thousands of dollars over the years to create icon packages to help promote our program and format (such as the recently released Christmas Time IconPackager theme).

 

For someone to simply come along and try to cash in on our hard work without any compensation strikes us as both morally and legally wrong.  But to actually sue us (and they are also suing me personally, not just Stardock and I can say, on a personal note, getting a lawsuit that targets me personally a week before Christmas is pretty crummy) is just incredible.

 

Like I said, we don’t have a problem with them changing icons or making icon sets. What features they add to their program are their business. But to try to profit from our hard work over many years is wrong and to file a lawsuit against us (and me personally) to try to force us to let them use our intellectual property goes beyond words.

 

So that’s where we’re at.  We will defend our rights because the implications it would have on all our software as well as on the community. If people who create things don’t get to have a say on how it’s used, it would likely have a chilling effect on our community – whether you’re a skin author, an icon artist, a theme author, or a software developer.

 

IconPackager’s page is: https://www.stardock.com/products/iconpackager/

First Previous Page 1 of 15 Next Last
craeonics
Reply #1 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:22 AM
Nice holiday present.

Why are they sueing you personally? I'd figure this would be between the two companies.
lalfonsob
Reply #2 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:28 AM
I hate those guys! >

I hope you can win this and have a Merry Christmas.

Those guys. >

Now I’m Mad
Frogboy
Reply #3 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:29 AM
You'd think. I believe them suing me is not just unnecessary but a bit petty and vindictive.
I.R. Brainiac
Reply #4 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:38 AM
Geez!The unmitigated gall of those A-holes!Sleasebags.Maybe something like this will finally pish MS into applying a 'little' pressure on these guys.Sounds like idiots run the place. >
slinky1947
Reply #5 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:41 AM
The green eyed monster, I guess. You could perhaps feel flattered but I know you don't!
Xaltec
Reply #6 Friday, December 19, 2003 11:41 AM
I have just one word for them as swearing isnt allowed....


WRONG!!!!!
Stumpy
Reply #7 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:06 PM
I really hope (Fingers Crossed) that you win the case, Good Luck to Frogboy and Stardock




Powered by SkinBrowser!
Emily
Reply #8 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:20 PM
Good grief disgusting behavior.

What's next? Burglars suing home owners for locking their doors?
IPlural
Reply #9 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:31 PM
Frankly I do not see how they figure they can win. I would also look into a personal counter suit for Liable because they have come at you on a personal level and besmirched your name and reputation with the filing of their case against you (Which is not actionable in an of itself, but testimony and whatever might be said openly in public forum about you could very well be found a basis for such and actionable) also if they want to go further there would be lost personal income and possibly other damages...

Also, the case against Stardock is rather moronic of them on a number of points.

1. They not only promote but sell a product which breaks the contract everyone has with Microsoft when they install the operating system by illegally hacking a core DLL. (Microsoft just might decide it is time to drag them through the mud and shut them down)

2. They hold no right to the Intellectual Proprietary Property of Stardock which can be licensed through a commercial venue. (it is not like they have no other option open to them, they in fact decide to steal it instead)

3. When they loose the case in court and discover that they had a Lawyer who was all fired up and filling them with lopsided information about how they can win these cases. They will not be able to recover the funds which where thrown away only to find that they did not have a case to begin with.

4. If, and that is a huge leap, they are a legitimate business I would suggest the CEO go to school for at least a refresher course in Business Law.


It does go a long way in painting a picture of just who they are and what they are; those who own and operate TGT Soft.

I predict they loose, they spend loads of money and loose that also, and also might end up loosing everything else while they are at it in the end..

sad...

You know sometimes a Law Suit is valid and the only course one has open to them. Other times it is a mindless process which only ends up spending loads of money filling Lawyers pockets and binding the court system up. I hope the Judge really gets put out with them over this crap and proves it to them with action...

Sorry to hear this Brad and everyone at Stardock, it is not a good surprise let alone one for the Holidays...
[Message Edited]
feline
Reply #10 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:32 PM
feline *stunned expression*

*insert very rude comment about TGT Soft's behaviour*

surely they dont have a legal leg to stand on??? feline really hopes Stardock and Frogboy can sort this out quickly and painlessly

well, painlessly for them at least! under the circumstances i am not that concerned about pain for TGT.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
IPlural
Reply #11 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:33 PM
What's next? Burglars suing home owners for locking their doors?


Maybe not but we had one here in Florida back in the late 80's that did sue for lost wages and pain and suffering after being shot and surviving.

really really...
c242
Reply #12 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:36 PM
That is really sad... I really wish MS would get after them for that patch they are doing. But what got me most is that they sue You personally. IMHO there is absolutely no need for such a behaviour. Maybe there where some more people involved in that decision as we know now... (I think of certain blasts about Stardock on certain websites...)



Powered by SkinBrowser!
RadialFX
Reply #13 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:36 PM
This just makes me FURIOUS!! Have these guys really "Created" anything on their own? I mean, StyleXP is a based on a HACKED uxtheme.dll which was "created" by Microsoft! Seems to me they'll stop at nothing. Twisted business principals is simply something that can't be tolerated!

Bottom line: It's theft. They are simply stealing and profiting from Stardock's property. > >
joetheblow
Reply #14 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:39 PM
Frankly I was wondering when that would happen.

No offense to anyone here.

Just some stuff I learned from law class just resently made me think it would happen eventually.

Leo the Lion
Reply #15 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:45 PM
Well of all the cheek > How unbelieveably petty can they get >
Zodiaq~
Reply #16 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:46 PM
How pathetic...

Do they really think they have a chance? It would seem like an open and shut case infavor of Stardock

Jerks >
Big Doug
Reply #17 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:47 PM
Big Doug thinks StarDock should just buy them outright and turn their headquarters into a parking lot...
[Message Edited]
fivesballs
Reply #18 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:55 PM
I cannot beleive what i just read

Jerks is right >
joetheblow
Reply #19 Friday, December 19, 2003 12:55 PM
Oh and your right IPlural.

If Stardock patented there ability to essentially place icons sets on the computer then is pretty open and close.

Even if not, if they can prove common copyright then it will be open and close as well.


My estimation is that the lawyers knew they could not win with company vs. company because it is pretty clear cut with numerous cases setting copyright interpretation of law. Not to mention that Stardock is incorporated (I assume in Michican... which is funny because I remember Louisiana being another state... so basically they are trying to drag you into another juristicion...)


So they are going to try to prove that Frogboy personally could have OKed this transaction and by not doing so caused TGSoft harm somehow.


Isn't Tort law fun?
joetheblow
Reply #20 Friday, December 19, 2003 1:00 PM
...a juristiction more favorable to them ofcourse.


Plus I would say of course they are going to make a program that bites off of Icon packager such that it uses IP packaging techniques and just renames it to TGSoft's own extention.


Don't they think its ok to sell a hack of a dll?

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!



web-wc01