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 #122 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:00 PM
Reply #123 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:30 PM
[Message Edited]
Reply #124 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:32 PM
Reply #125 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:34 PM
For the amount of money TGT Soft is going to have to spend on lawyers they could have paid professional skin authors to create dozens of exclusive icon packages in a format they created and been totally legitimate and have helped the icon author community.
Apparently, instead, they would prefer to pay lawyers to try to force us to let them use our IconPackager format.
Reply #126 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:39 PM
Reply #127 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:40 PM
Reply #128 Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:56 PM
Reply #129 Saturday, December 20, 2003 11:03 PM
Reply #130 Saturday, December 20, 2003 11:42 PM
Of course there's no way to stop them if they want to do it under the table, but every little thing you can do to make it harder makes it less worthwhile to do. I mean, their whole app is a hack to begin with, right? Why MS tolerates it is strange, considering using it seems to void the user agreement for the OS.
[Message Edited]
Reply #131 Sunday, December 21, 2003 5:07 AM
[Message Edited]
Reply #132 Sunday, December 21, 2003 5:39 AM
very true, for the money they spend they could indeed hire mormegil, treetog, alexandrie, jairo, etc.Reply #133 Sunday, December 21, 2003 8:53 AM
| #121 by Citizen Ja450n - 12/20/2003 7:11:29 PM so why would a StyleXP users come here for icons? |
Did you read the information at all? StyleXP had incorporated the ability to change Icon Packager sets.
That mean people could buy it, then use the sets from here meaning Stardock do all the work, and TGT reap the rewards, not to mention increase the server loads with their greedy leeching.
| by requireing people that don't even use your products to pay for access to files. |
No, only people who have downloaded 50Mb, and hit the D/L cap, have to make some sort of contribution.
It's only fair that they give something back, if they're going to make use of the site.
Reply #134 Sunday, December 21, 2003 8:56 AM
Reply #135 Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:59 AM
And I feel sorry your SD and you to get this kind of stress just before christmas.
All hail to SD.
/ignore TGT
Reply #136 Sunday, December 21, 2003 10:45 AM
| No, only people who have downloaded 50Mb, and hit the D/L cap, have to make some sort of contribution.It's only fair that they give something back, if they're going to make use of the site. |
Yeah....but Mark they just go off and sign up again using a different nick and then get another 50 megs worth of goodies for rock all....zilch....happens all the time........but hopefully this will get plugged in the New Year with any other changes

Reply #137 Sunday, December 21, 2003 10:56 AM
Also, one doesn't need StyleXP to use msstyles, the free hack is widely available. So most of StyleXP's competition in the use of msstyles with the hack comes from the availability of the free hack, not from SD because WB doesn't use the hack. And StyleXP profits from their own use of the hack of MS proprietary property. All they created is a program that provides a GUI when one hacks MS' proprietary file. Notice how they don't skin the earlier MS OS...because they don't have a real skinning program of their own.
So in my view the the ability to convert msstyles to WB format is not comparable to the conversion of Iconpackager themes to their product. What StyleXP is doing now with its lawsuit is comparable to them suing MS to preclude MS taking any action against them for illegitimately using MS's proprietary property.

Reply #138 Sunday, December 21, 2003 10:58 AM
Reply #139 Sunday, December 21, 2003 11:13 AM
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 #121 Saturday, December 20, 2003 7:11 PM
that doesn't make sense. I've been a wincustomize member for quite a while, but since i don't own any Stardock products, i can't download anything, so why would a StyleXP users come here for icons? (seeing as how they would have to pay to get the files)
your not loosing money, you getting more, by requireing people that don't even use your products to pay for access to files.