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 4 of 15 Next Last
kongit
Reply #61 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:24 PM
what the funniest part of it all is that more people probably use a hacked dll for free then the one from tgt. I am suprised that they attacked stardock instead of a place like [editted] that offers a free one. They still would be on shifty footing. They did not make the dll to begin with, so who's to say that it is their's. I hope ol' billy gets a big chainsaw for Christmas and has a little fun with tgt.
Aleatoric
Reply #62 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:29 PM
Jafo,

I agree about the EULA (although the reverse engineering clause is void in Europe, and other places, and has never been actually tested in the states). Even if valid in the EULA, that makes it a contract or licensing issue, and is still not a priori illegal (apart from the terms of the license).

Jafo
Reply #63 Friday, December 19, 2003 7:36 PM
As I said...there is no law stating 'Thou shalt not decompile', however there is a law that states that contracts entered into openly and willingly are enforcable if violated...
joetheblow
Reply #64 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:11 PM
um, this is dumb... there are no legal grounds... its like suing ford to use their body from the new ford GT...never gonna happen...



I think, if I read correctly, that is why they are not suing Stardock, they are suing Brad HIMSELF! Since Stardock is incorporated them suing Stardock takes money from the company but not touching Brad's personal finances (house, car)


I think TGSoft's lawyers know that they can not win suing Stardock (if they are attempting that then I guess they are just trying to get a customer because it is near impossible to win)



So suing Brad is the way to go.
joetheblow
Reply #65 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:14 PM
hmmmm... I have a question:

Does TGSoft's program sit on top of IconPackager or does it just hack into it and change the icon settings and the extension type to its own (while still using IP as the organizer)?
Jafo
Reply #66 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:16 PM

Joe...they are attempting to sue everything that moves....not just Brad alone.

Any minute now they'll be suing the skinners/icon creators for not uploading their works in TGTSoft's stolen format....

[sorry...allegedly stolen format]....

Phoon
Reply #67 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:16 PM
funny.. there is nothing in the themexp.org forums about this.
I logged in and started an new topic to vent at the #$%^...
My post did not even show. So it seems they may be monitoring for these types of posts and want to keep their "loyal" group in the dark.
paxx
Reply #68 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:17 PM
joe, all it will do (as it doesn't do anything of the sort for now) is rename the extension. Nothing else. And then apply the icons.
Essencay
Reply #69 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:42 PM
funny.. there is nothing in the themexp.org forums about this.


topic posted don't know how long it will stay before it gets vaporized
bakerstreet
Reply #70 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:52 PM
Actually I was under the impression that the DMCA act Adobe used to have that Russian hacker arrested actually states that decompiling *is* a method of avioding or subverting copy protection.

**

As for the lawsuit, let me understand. Isn't the .ip format just PKWare's zip format with a renamed extension? What was Stardock claiming to own in the first letter? MS, for example, holds pretty tight onto their multimedia formats, but the actual format they use is proprietary, no one can encode to that without a license. Other than the file extension, what about the .ip format is Stardock's? Can the alphanumeric file extensions themselves be proprietary? I find differently formatted files with the same extensions all the time.

Granted, there's no doubt that they were trying to expand their softwares abilities by accepting Stardock's packs, and that can be considered a bit cheesy amoungst competitors. But, honestly, how is it any different than, say AbiWord accepting .doc files? Unless the format itself is proprietary, what is the legal basis for preventing them from doing it?

I guess what I am saying is Stardock's original letter seems to be stating that the .ip format is theirs. How so? If it isn't, the Thanksgiving C&D letter seems as baseless as their Christmas laswuit. Both just seem to be renaming the zip format they didn't originate.


[Message Edited]
Hus
Reply #71 Friday, December 19, 2003 8:59 PM
Baker, I think IP themes are more than just icons zipped up, they need to have some sort of text file to let IconPackeger know which icon belongs where...and I think that is what is in question here. TGT wants to use those text files for their own software while Stardock wants to protect it.
bakerstreet
Reply #72 Friday, December 19, 2003 9:05 PM
Ahh, I see. So it isn't the actual pack that is in question, but the little text file that is included. Hrm. I guess that would be something similar to an .ini file. Perhaps Stardock's software could compile the info into a hash or something. If it is freely read it would be hard to prevent this kind of thing.

The whole IP thing is difficult. What users see as expanded usability, the software developers see as treading on their ground. I like my products to open as many formats as possible, but I recognize that it can be annoying to developers. I just always feel crummy when I see something that can't open jpg or wma formats because the developer can't afford to pay royalties. In this case they probably could, but they would just pass the cost on to the user anyway...

I wonder what steps Stardock has gone to claim sole ownership of the format. Actually, if Stardock encrypted the format, wouldn't they be breaking the law if they de-encrypted it? Might be something to consider in future versions.


[Message Edited]
kongit
Reply #73 Friday, December 19, 2003 9:19 PM
I doubt stardock would of sued tgt if they used the format without asking (I might be wrong). The problem is tgt sued stardock and frogboy. I respect Frogboy he gets a lot of flak over at neowin even though he is a moderator there. He also does countless things for this site and stardock. Woot! for Frogboy.

TGT Soft is a bunch of clown butts

I doubt encrypting the format would stop very much, but it would be a step.
IPlural
Reply #74 Friday, December 19, 2003 9:22 PM
TGT Soft does not in fact have the right to reverse Engineer unless Stardock specifically gave it to them...

*excerpt from the DMCA* (further down is the clause dealing with reverse engineering)

"Exceptions
Finally, the prohibitions contained in section 1201 are subject to a number of
exceptions. One is an exception to the operation of the entire section, for law
enforcement, intelligence and other governmental activities. (Section 1201(e)). The
others relate to section 1201(a), the provision dealing with the category of technological
measures that control access to works.
The broadest of these exceptions, section 1201(a)(1)(-(E), establishes an
ongoing administrative rule-making proceeding to evaluate the impact of the
prohibition against the act of circumventing such access-control measures. This
conduct prohibition does not take effect for two years. Once it does, it is subject to
an exception for users of a work which is in a particular class of works if they are or are
likely to be adversely affected by virtue of the prohibition in making noninfringing uses.
The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the
Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who is
to consult with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information.
The six additional exceptions are as follows:

1. Nonprofit library, archive and educational institution exception
(section 1201(d)). The prohibition on the act of circumvention of
access control measures is subject to an exception that permits
nonprofit libraries, archives and educational institutions to circumvent
solely for the purpose of making a good faith determination as to
whether they wish to obtain authorized access to the work.


2. Reverse engineering (section 1201(f)). This exception permits
circumvention, and the development of technological means for such
circumvention, by a person who has lawfully obtained a right to use a
copy of a computer program for the sole purpose of identifying and
analyzing elements of the program necessary to achieve interoperability
with other programs, to the extent that such acts are permitted under
copyright law.

IPlural
Reply #75 Friday, December 19, 2003 9:23 PM
In other words, they are either gifted the *right* or pay for the *right* to reverse engineer...
jarget
Reply #76 Friday, December 19, 2003 10:02 PM
TGT Soft are IDIOTS. Jealousy man jealousy. They know Stardock has the better product and they're just trying to make their product look better by adding the IP button. Why in the hell can't they just make their own icon changing program? WHY, because they're hackers, not programmers. >
joetheblow
Reply #77 Friday, December 19, 2003 10:04 PM


thanks Jafo and paxx.

The more I here about the case the more I think its is a 'cased close' in favor of Stardock.


I'll look in the morning (or sometime there after) about cases that are similar to this. From memory there are plenty.



I am at a loss as to why they went forward with the suit. I get suing Brad (because all other ways would definitely not work) but suing 'everything that moves' seems quite ridiculous.



Personally I would counter-sue based on tort civil law and quite possibly criminal law as well.



It funny that they brought suit in Louisiana instead of Michigan (Stardock's home state).

Stardock could have just ignored it as long as they don't have any way of proving that Stardock has residency (forgot the actual term word for this) in Louisiana.

But I guess they can't ignore this challenge (mostly because TGSoft would just use it anyway)



Counter-Sue Brad... and I wouldn't talk about it any more either.
GhoS
Reply #78 Friday, December 19, 2003 10:29 PM
The way that this country gets caught up in useless lawsuits is ridiculous. It amounts to Adult temper tantrums... GROW UP TGT Soft!

I am curious though if StyleXP applied it themes in a legal manner what would be said about them? Not that it matters much since I still think its wrong to sue just because you don't get your way.

It was interesting to read on neowin though how many have a hatred of Stardock or think they charge too much. Gee I think charging $20 for a program that uses a hacked file is a rip-off. I don't think that just because I enjoy Stardocks programs. Its called more bang for the buck, not to mention an honest buck.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
joetheblow
Reply #79 Friday, December 19, 2003 10:46 PM
ok... what is going on with their site?

http://www.tgsoft.com/

???
Jafo
Reply #80 Friday, December 19, 2003 10:49 PM
Joe.....tgtsoft....

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