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
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/
Reply #42 Friday, December 19, 2003 4:39 PM
Reply #43 Friday, December 19, 2003 5:09 PM
Snowman rounds up the possé and heads for Style XP HQ
Anyone got some spare tar and a bag of feathers??
Reply #44 Friday, December 19, 2003 5:34 PM
On my Architectural drawings....
"This drawing is the property of Paul Martin and shall not be used or communicated in any way without prior written permission."
This makes ALL copies/variations/permutations of my copyrighted property unlawful unless specific consent is given.
I currently have floored a claim from a builder that is attempting to prevent construction of a project which made use of drawings prepared by him. The 'boo-boo' on his part is that his drawings had used mine without MY consent....invalidating any claim he may have to 'his' works....
Now, if an Icon artist compiles his works for distribution with Iconpackager there is no consideration or provision in the implicit distribution consent for this 'package' to be reverse-engineered in some form for some alternate distribution means.
This is therefore an infringement of the artists' expressed and/or inherent property rights.
Each artist would have a far better chance for a successful suit against TGTSoft than the latter would against Stardock.
If this distribution via alternate format eventuates I wonder whether the clever people at TGTSoft will welcome a sea of individual suits asserting breach of copyright.
If that happens, don't forget to sue TGTSoft in whole and individually...
Now what pisses me off is not the 'attack' on Stardock and Brad as such [frivolous litigation is uniquely American] although it's both untimely, unwarranted and indefensible, but the fact that a 'part' of the Skinning world can be willing to drag the whole industry into disrepute....this is the sort of crap that happens in other walks of life....we don't need it in ours.
I am betting the writing is on the wall for TGTSoft's dll hack, etc, which keeps getting nobbled with each Service Pack release and likely will never work on Longhorn.....they'll be needing to diversify, hence this Icon Packager theft issue. [sorry....'alleged theft' issue]...
The last unsavoury event of significance was the unfortunate association of the original skinz.org with eFront...but even that was an 'outsider' to the community.
Like it or not, TGTSoft is 'part' of skinning.....unfortunately not a particularly 'nice' part, as current events clearly demonstrate. Their clear willingness to ride rough-shod over property rights and bring disharmony to the skinning community are damning to their cause.
May their chickens turn to emus and kick their dunny down...
Reply #45 Friday, December 19, 2003 5:52 PM
never gonna happen...
Reply #46 Friday, December 19, 2003 5:52 PM

Reply #47 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:00 PM
Well, to answer your question, Karma, normally I wouldn't care wghat program people use to use icons/skins I would make. I would care though if my icons/skins were distributed without my consent, but as far as my work is downloaded from where I made them available, I really would not care what use they personnaly make of it - again, as long as they don't distribute it. For example, if somebody unzips an iconpackage I made and decides to apply them individually without IP, or if a Mac user decided to convert it in Mac format, or if somebody used any program really I would not care. I don't make things specifically for an application, but for people to use. It just so happens that the easiest way to use icons at the present is to use Icon Packager, but it's not something I would or wish to force on people.
On the other hand, TGT Soft having proved to the face of the World that they are really just a bunch of sharks, I would wholeheartedly support Stardock at the persent. I would therefore wish that anything I made would not in any way be used in conjunction with any product made by TGT Soft. Again, I emphasis that it's not because I would feel ripped or deceived in any way - but solely as to show my support for Stardock in this issue.
Reply #48 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:10 PM

Hacked DLL, ripped iconpackager, and now what?
TGT is in trouble indeed.Reply #49 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:23 PM
| Reverse engineering |
It states on their website that this is one of the services they offer >

Reply #50 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:34 PM
The problem lies in how the reverse engineering is done (i.e., clean room vs copy and paste).
That said, what TGTSoft is trying to do is to use a copyrighted format without permission. They're on pretty shaky legal ground there.
Reply #51 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:38 PM
Reply #52 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:40 PM
Reply #53 Friday, December 19, 2003 6:56 PM
Lets hope TGT gets stomped. Lets also hope that M$FT helps in the stomping, since they could put TGT out of business with one lawsuite which has a very sound basis.
Reply #56 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:08 PM
Reply #57 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:16 PM
Aleatoric....just before you trpe in the CD key when installing the MS OS you have to click on an 'I accept' button....it's a screen called the EULA, and I'm pretty sure it precludes the decompiling nad/or reverse engineering of the MS product.
Sure, there's no 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's dll coding' on a slab of rock somewhere...but it's illegal just the same....
Reply #58 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:17 PM

Reply #59 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:19 PM
Good luck Brad... We are all with you in spirit. Stick it to 'em.

Reply #60 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:22 PM
I find it hard to believe that these 'adults' act in such a manner... >

| 'Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's dll coding' |

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!








Reply #41 Friday, December 19, 2003 4:25 PM
What is one alternative?
Gradually change the software they sell to become a program that essentially just applies other skins. Starting with IconPackager and moving through the line to WindowBlinds. They won't be able to use msstyles anymore, so if they intend to stay in the desktop customization business, it's either come up with a new hack or find a way to use other companies skins.
First step down that road?