Ghamak raising a GoFundMe for legal defence against GW lawsuit

[TheVoidDragon]

18 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Because in this case they absolutely are. And if you're defending them? So are you.

 

Your subjective opinion on this isn't a fact despite you trying to claim otherwise. It's fine for you to disagree, but to try and make out that your own personal views on this are something objective and that you're now going to start accusing anyone disagreeing with you of being "the bad guy" says a lot.

 

18 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

If Ghamak has lied about the lawsuit (which again, I HIGHLY doubt) GW might be in the right. As is this is textbook legal bullying.

 

If this is exactly as he claims with nothing more to it and it turns out that there's no actual credibility to GWs claims, then yes, that would be bad.

But we don't know that. We have one side making a claim, with no evidence, only half the story, and that's it. 

 

The point is you aren't waiting to find be given more information before deciding, you've done straight onto the "GW BAD!" bandwagon and making out that no matter what they're wrong. Even if they were right. 

 

18 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

It has to involve a closer degree of likeness than what Ghamak is producing.

 

According to what, exactly....? You've seen all 1000 of these designs GW have included, have you? You know what the criteria is for this within the relevant Italian legal stuff? You know exactly how it works there and what is or isn't covered and know for a fact they're not? Or are you just making up your own assumption of what's allowed and using that to make out that these don't count regardless? 

 

 

Edited 13 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Exarch Telepse-Ehto]

Some of these models are no doubt “not-Space Marines.” Others have a bit more leeway and I’m always skeptical of a “creator” that immediately runs to social media to plead their case. A wiser person would have talked to only a lawyer. And I dislike people crowdsourcing legal defense funds. But that’s just personal distaste.

 

Much like 40K, there are no heroes here. One person is pretending to be the people’s champion and the other is GW. 
The models are pretty meh anyway. 

[Inquisitor lorr]

10 minutes ago, phandaal said:

 

I had to get an Abominable Intelligence to help on that one. Apparently it covers things like packaging and design when Intellectual Property rights do not cover the supposedly illegal thing, and is intended to prevent brand confusion.

 

Wonder if GW is going to use this as a test case for getting around their Chapterhouse losses, and that is why they picked Ghamak for their target. "Sure, we cannot claim Space Marines as our intellectual property, but come on! Everyone thinks of 40k when they see big round pauldrons and power armor!"

 

Now I am even more interested to see Ghamak post the details like he claims he will.

To be honest, I suspect that GW won’t be successful in a claim (if limited to the material that’s been shared/discussed) - it seems analogous to ‘passing off’ type claims in England and Wales, which all revolves around abusing the goodwill of another brand. 
 

That said, as I commented before, I have no sympathy for Ghamak. He knows what he is doing and now he’s dealing with the consequences (even if they may be limited to GW posturing for a bit). 

[AvePicante]

10 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

"Economic damage" is such an incredibly vague and loose term that it holds zero weight. GW cause economic damage to themselves by making poor decisions that drive away customers- are you suggesting GW should file lawsuits against individuals within their company responsible for poor decisions that contribute to this?

"Not buying your products" cannot under any circumstances be considered a crime. Otherwise eBay is responsible for "economic damage" when I buy a metal Dreadnought from a seller second-hand rather than giving GW money for a Redemptor.

Yeah, they chose an intentionally vague tort like unfair competition because it's easier to pursue. And employees are punished; CEOs are fired, employees are let go for underperforming, and suits are brought against employees for misrepresenting organizations. You are absolutely correct that internal employees can and perhaps should be held responsible for economic damage.

"Not buying your products" isn't the problem at fault here. The consumer isn't the problem. It's the manufacturer that's the issue. "I am selling a product that is directly taking away sales from the original manufacturer" is the issue. This is different from say, the Halo tabletop or the Battletech game, those are entirely unique systems from 40k.

Question still remains, is Ghamak causing economic damage to GW by selling these products?

 

Also, the ebay statement is a false equivalence, under first sale doctrine you can resell anything you purchase through legal channels. I can sell my Ghamak knight as a Ghamak knight because I bought it from a licensed seller. I can sell my GW knight as a GW knight for the same reason 

[Evil Eye]

1 minute ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Your subjective opinion on this isn't a fact despite you trying to claim otherwise.

Good thing it's not my subjective opinion then.

 

It's a fact that large companies, like GW, will when given the opportunity try and choke out any perceived competition and will go to ridiculous, and immoral, lengths to do so. Apple trying to patent the shape of the rounded rectangle, for instance. 

 

It's a fact that GW is absurdly litigious and overprotective of their IP, and has gone after other companies for perceived "infringement" when no such thing actually took place (trying to trademark the words "space marine", going after the Battletech guys for the use of the word "warhammer" etc).

 

It's a fact that Ghamak is a much smaller legal entity than GW whose operation posed zero threat to their continued existence as a company.

 

There is absolutely no justification for GW doing what they're doing here. Even assuming it's actually the usual case of "Well uh, your guys have big shoulders and backpacks! We own those!" they're on shaky ground given the lacking resemblance. If what Ghamak is saying is true though? No excuse. At all.

 

9 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

It's fine for you to disagree

Well unfortunately it's not fine for you to disagree here. You are wrong.

 

10 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

but to try and make out that your own personal views on this are something objective and that you're now going to start accusing anyone disagreeing with you of being "the bad guy" says a lot.

As mentioned above, this is not subjective. And yes, it says a lot- about you.

 

12 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

If this is exactly as he claims with nothing more to it and it turns out that there's no actual credibility to GWs claims, then yes, that would be bad.

And what credibility or past precedence does GW have for NOT abusing the legal process? Like, how likely do we really think it is that GW wouldn't do that?

 

13 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

But we don't know that. We have one side making a claim, with no evidence, only half the story, and that's it. 

"I mean sure, the wolf has blood on his jaws, there's wolf bites all over her leg and this wolf has bitten people before, but let's hear his side of the story!".

 

Sure, it might turn out Ghamak is outright lying. But realistically- how likely IS that given GW's record?

 

16 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

The point is you aren't waiting to find be given more information before deciding, you've done straight onto the "GW BAD!" bandwagon and making out that no matter what they're wrong. Even if they were right. 

 

GW IS bad though. They've already proven themselves to be pretty bad. That's the point. It's less "Is GW bad or not?" it's "Are GW THAT bad?". This lawsuit is not in a vacuum.

 

18 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

According to what, exactly....? You've seen all 1000 of these designs GW have included, have you?

We've seen in this very thread the examples chosen to represent "infringing" designs and not one of them is even close to being considerable as "infringement".

 

19 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

You know what the criteria is for this within the relevant Italian legal stuff?

If the Italian legal system judges that his sculpts are "infringement" then the Italian legal system is in need of heavy reform. Because they're not. Just use your eyes.

 

20 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

You know exactly how it works there and what is or isn't covered and know for a fact they're not?

I have functioning eyes and a brain.

 

21 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

Or are you just making up your own assumption of what's allowed and using that to make out that GW are the ones wrong here regardless? 

What do I have to gain from pretending GW are worse than they are? Seriously, you're acting like GW is your mother the way you react to me suggesting their actions are less than pure. GW are absolutely notorious for their atrocious legal conduct. If they think they can shut down a perceived "threat" regardless of whether there is a threat or not, or whether they're in any way justified in doing so, they will. They have done so before, and if a precedent isn't set that they can't just bully other companies into extinction, they will do so again. And again. And again.

[techsoldaten]

GW's claims about Unfair Competition are sinister manipulations.

Article 2598 was meant to protect against companies labelling counterfeits as authentic. It's for the Louis Vuitton's of the world to have a means of going after knock offs labelling themselves as the real thing.

The statue was not supposed to be used to avoid copyright lawsuits. GW could absolutely claim the models are making use of their intellectual property. Instead, they're claiming the product could be mistaken as genuine, which is hard to see. Looking at the models in the first few posts, the differences are not hard to spot - angles are different, key details like helmets are different, etc. The standard is if something is 25% different from the original, it's a novel design. I think Ghamak models meet that threshold.

Were GW to prevail, they could easily monopolize the entire 28mm sci-fi miniature market - anytime someone sells a model, just say it looks like something they did in the 1980s and could be confused with their product. While I suspect this case will go away because Ghamak does not ship a physical product, the legal interpretation has to be challenged.

[Scribe]

I'm about as far away from "GW Shill" as I can be without getting banned for cursing them out all the time.

 

I still find it absolutely wild that people can CLEARLY steal GW IP and make money, and people defend that, and when people did this before like ChapterHouse, that ruined things for us, and amusingly is likely why we have the piss poor 'build the box, thats your rules' approach we have now.

[Inquisitor lorr]

9 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Good thing it's not my subjective opinion then.

 

It's a fact that large companies, like GW, will when given the opportunity try and choke out any perceived competition and will go to ridiculous, and immoral, lengths to do so. Apple trying to patent the shape of the rounded rectangle, for instance. 

 

It's a fact that GW is absurdly litigious and overprotective of their IP, and has gone after other companies for perceived "infringement" when no such thing actually took place (trying to trademark the words "space marine", going after the Battletech guys for the use of the word "warhammer" etc).

 

It's a fact that Ghamak is a much smaller legal entity than GW whose operation posed zero threat to their continued existence as a company.

 

There is absolutely no justification for GW doing what they're doing here. Even assuming it's actually the usual case of "Well uh, your guys have big shoulders and backpacks! We own those!" they're on shaky ground given the lacking resemblance. If what Ghamak is saying is true though? No excuse. At all.

 

Well unfortunately it's not fine for you to disagree here. You are wrong.

 

As mentioned above, this is not subjective. And yes, it says a lot- about you.

 

And what credibility or past precedence does GW have for NOT abusing the legal process? Like, how likely do we really think it is that GW wouldn't do that?

 

"I mean sure, the wolf has blood on his jaws, there's wolf bites all over her leg and this wolf has bitten people before, but let's hear his side of the story!".

 

Sure, it might turn out Ghamak is outright lying. But realistically- how likely IS that given GW's record?

 

GW IS bad though. They've already proven themselves to be pretty bad. That's the point. It's less "Is GW bad or not?" it's "Are GW THAT bad?". This lawsuit is not in a vacuum.

 

We've seen in this very thread the examples chosen to represent "infringing" designs and not one of them is even close to being considerable as "infringement".

 

If the Italian legal system judges that his sculpts are "infringement" then the Italian legal system is in need of heavy reform. Because they're not. Just use your eyes.

 

I have functioning eyes and a brain.

 

What do I have to gain from pretending GW are worse than they are? Seriously, you're acting like GW is your mother the way you react to me suggesting their actions are less than pure. GW are absolutely notorious for their atrocious legal conduct. If they think they can shut down a perceived "threat" regardless of whether there is a threat or not, or whether they're in any way justified in doing so, they will. They have done so before, and if a precedent isn't set that they can't just bully other companies into extinction, they will do so again. And again. And again.

Do you actually enjoy creating discourse of this nature? 
 

There are so many other ways this discussion could have been approached. 

[ThaneOfTas]

Okay I think people are perhaps getting too wrapped up in the space marine portion of this.

 

If GW wins this and precedent is established that selling sci-fi models that "look like" and "can be used in games of Warhammer" is illegal, then it is comparatively easy to draw the line on space marines. GW will just effectively own the rights to models of a certain size and number featuring large pauldrons and power packs. I don't personally like that outcome but unless I'm misunderstanding some of your positions others of you are effectively okay with that.

 

What then about the Guard? Where do you draw the line there? Because the difference between a generic sci-fi army man and a guardsman is very, very fine. Take something like Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industries. Like the Ghamak, they create models that are very obviously meant to be used as proxies for GW models. I do not believe that you could tell me with a straight face that you can look at some of Victoria Miniatures models and not immediately know what they're ment to represent, which is the metric that I've seen being used in this thread.

 

However if you then say that those also should not be allowed, then where is the line drawn? Should other companies be disallowed from selling in squads of ten because then they might get used as guardsmen? 

 

You can make the argument that Space Marines have a unique and recognisable aesthetic and attemt to claim ownership of that, that isn't universally true for all of GWs products however.

[TheVoidDragon]

14 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

Good thing it's not my subjective opinion then.

 

 

 

Ah yes, making out that your opinion is an objective fact, resorting to insults, claiming no one is allowed to disagree with you and clearly indicating that you don't care about the facts as all you want to do is find any excuse to say GW are bad, such a great way to have a discussion. My mistake for thinking you were trying to talk about this in good faith. 
 

 

[TheMawr]

15 minutes ago, Exarch Telepse-Ehto said:

Some of these models are no doubt “not-Space Marines.” Others have a bit more leeway and I’m always skeptical of a “creator” that immediately runs to social media to plead their case. A wiser person would have talked to only a lawyer. And I dislike people crowdsourcing legal defense funds. But that’s just personal distaste.

 

Much like 40K, there are no heroes here. One person is pretending to be the people’s champion and the other is GW. 
The models are pretty meh anyway. 

 

Agreeing with most of it there yes, apart from the last part, slightly.

 

There are imho some absolute gems in there

 

I absolutely love the Vulturak ( me liking something birdy.. what a suprise ) and to me somehow the more original things are also much better sculpts in general for some reason. ( its very unclear to me if he is the sculptor and this is a one man business or if he is just the company owner hiring sculptors and artists, as the latter would explain the vastly different quality. )

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Inquisitor lorr]

1 minute ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Okay I think people are perhaps getting too wrapped up in the space marine portion of this.

 

If GW wins this and precedent is established that selling sci-fi models that "look like" and "can be used in games of Warhammer" is illegal, then it is comparatively easy to draw the line on space marines. GW will just effectively own the rights to models of a certain size and number featuring large pauldrons and power packs. I don't personally like that outcome but unless I'm misunderstanding some of your positions others of you are effectively okay with that.

 

What then about the Guard? Where do you draw the line there? Because the difference between a generic sci-fi army man and a guardsman is very, very fine. Take something like Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industries. Like the Ghamak, they create models that are very obviously meant to be used as proxies for GW models. I do not believe that you could tell me with a straight face that you can look at some of Victoria Miniatures models and not immediately know what they're ment to represent, which is the metric that I've seen being used in this thread.

 

However if you then say that those also should not be allowed, then where is the line drawn? Should other companies be disallowed from selling in squads of ten because then they might get used as guardsmen? 

 

You can make the argument that Space Marines have a unique and recognisable aesthetic and attemt to claim ownership of that, that isn't universally true for all of GWs products however.

I think the point here though is the nuance - which does make it a difficult question / problem to solve. 
 

The reality is that (at least for a number of examples which have been shared in this group) Ghamak has looked at GW’s models then deliberately created models which very, very closely represent them and then sought to directly profit from GW’s IP. As I’ve said earlier, I think the fact that if GW did not exist then there would be no market for these models is an important point. 
 

I do take your point about it being a potentially slippery slope and it is difficult to draw the line for some of the broader concepts. However, a number of the models are not in that territory - it is very clear which GW models they are trying to replace. That, for me, places Ghamak squarely in the wrong for those models. 

[Dr. Clock]

"The other case of the article 2598 number 1, the slavish imitation, instead, occurs when the imitation of competitor’s products concerns the external elements of the imitated products.

The slavish imitation can cause two different situations: the confusion of those who buy the imitation believing they are purchasing the original, or the awareness of those who buy an imitation making others believe that it is the original; therefore, ultimately, always confusion is created in the market." (https://registrare-marchio.com/en/three-types-of-unfair-competition/, emphasis mine)

 

That's interesting. The standard appears to include the potential for people who bought this item to convince others or otherwise cause the belief that it is a Warhammer and not a Ghamak. It sounds like it'd wind up likely as just a judge's assessment of whether anyone could 'reasonably be misled' whether before or after point of first sale.

 

I look at enough warhams that I know one when I see one... But equally I can remember a time when I wouldn't have been able to distinguish the good and legit from the bad and the bootleg. I still have a few knowingly-bought bootlegs kicking around from before 3d printing era so I'm not trying to be high and mighty, just to focus on the extent to which this kind of legal judgment need not be limited to the labeling or marketing, or even to the presence or lack of symbols, but even to things like the silhouettes of the units.

 

To my eye, Ghamak 'Not-Oblits' ,kinda run afoul of an 'adds confusion' argument. If the pose were substantially different from the GW one it might be fine, but all together I can easily see some unscrupulous scalper printing those off, spraying them black and then selling them on to people who buy 'used warhemmer obliterratorz' online without duly inspecting the photos. It may come down a judgment on the extent to which some of the Ghamak offerings are so direct in their imitation of the physical form that any reasonable person might be deceived about which is which.

 

ANyway... fun times.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[phandaal]

8 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

Okay I think people are perhaps getting too wrapped up in the space marine portion of this.

 

If GW wins this and precedent is established that selling sci-fi models that "look like" and "can be used in games of Warhammer" is illegal, then it is comparatively easy to draw the line on space marines. GW will just effectively own the rights to models of a certain size and number featuring large pauldrons and power packs. I don't personally like that outcome but unless I'm misunderstanding some of your positions others of you are effectively okay with that.

 

What then about the Guard? Where do you draw the line there? Because the difference between a generic sci-fi army man and a guardsman is very, very fine. Take something like Victoria Miniatures or Anvil Industries. Like the Ghamak, they create models that are very obviously meant to be used as proxies for GW models. I do not believe that you could tell me with a straight face that you can look at some of Victoria Miniatures models and not immediately know what they're ment to represent, which is the metric that I've seen being used in this thread.

 

However if you then say that those also should not be allowed, then where is the line drawn? Should other companies be disallowed from selling in squads of ten because then they might get used as guardsmen? 

 

You can make the argument that Space Marines have a unique and recognisable aesthetic and attemt to claim ownership of that, that isn't universally true for all of GWs products however.

 

Man, if GW wins and uses this as an excuse to get rid of Victoria Minis' Space Aussies, everyone Down Under might riot. Not sure how much more they can take after dealing with absurd GW markups, plus all the stress from hanging on to the bottom of the planet like koalas. 

 

To be serious: After looking at those unfair practices laws, it really does seem like GW's legal team is trying to establish a method for doing end runs around cases where they may not be able to prove IP infringement. If the spirit of the law really is there to protect from knock-off brands, then GW deserve to get denied just for trying to abuse that law. Gonna have to wait and see what actual evidence Ghamak is able to produce though.

[Evil Eye]

27 minutes ago, Inquisitor lorr said:

Do you actually enjoy creating discourse of this nature? 

Not at all, I hate it in fact. However, I hate seeing people running defence for abusive, monopolistic practices by GW considerably more. If people are going to defend GW over this? Damn right I'm going to tell them they're wrong.

 

21 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

My mistake for thinking you were trying to talk about this in good faith. 

I am talking about this in good faith- the fact that you are taking a morally indefensible position does not change that. But concession accepted.

[Wispy]

28 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

What then about the Guard? Where do you draw the line there?

i, mean there are levels to everything lol. Somethings are indistinct, like the basic and pretty generic Cadian Shocktrooper. On the other hand... 

[Wispy]

28 minutes ago, TheMawr said:

 

Agreeing with most of it there yes, apart from the last part, slightly.

 

There are imho some absolute gems in there

 

I absolutely love the Vulturak ( me liking something birdy.. what a suprise ) and to me somehow the more original things are also much better sculpts in general for some reason. ( its very unclear to me if he is the sculptor and this is a one man business or if he is just the company owner hiring sculptors and artists, as the latter would explain the vastly different quality. )

 

I don't know what any of those are supposed to be, they're cool and probably fine. Are they supposed to be Kroot? They tow the line a lot better than his imperial stuff.

[TheVoidDragon]

23 minutes ago, Evil Eye said:

I am talking about this in good faith- the fact that you are taking a morally indefensible position does not change that. But concession accepted.

 

Sure, that explains you genuinely trying to make out that your opinion is objective fact that no one is allowed to disagree and

insulting those who don't follow your clear disdain for GW. Trying to claim you're approaching this in a good faith manner after doing that is just utterly absurd. 

 

That you think it's "morally indefensible" for the creator of something to try and stop someone else from infringing on that that is quite strange too. Again, you don't know the specifics of how this sort of thing works there and what is or isn't allowed, and you having seen 5 cherry picked examples out of 1000 is not enough to determine anything.

 

Edited 12 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Evil Eye]

2 minutes ago, TheVoidDragon said:

That you think it's "morally indefensible" for the creator of something to try and stop someone else from infringing on that that is quite strange too.

That is absolutely not what's happening here and I think you know that.

[ThaneOfTas]

44 minutes ago, Inquisitor lorr said:

However, a number of the models are not in that territory - it is very clear which GW models they are trying to replace. That, for me, places Ghamak squarely in the wrong for those models. 

You see I just flat out don't think that this is a good enough metric to judge if a model is okay or not.

 

If you had no knowledge of for example Halo, and saw a squad of 10 UNSC troopers next to a squad of Cadians, all that you'd see is some slightly up armoured knock off with different weapons. So should that mean that the new Halo Firefight game shouldn't be allowed to produce an expansion with basic infantry? 

 

Likewise, in my previous example, it's abundantly clear that Victoria Miniatures Space Aussies are meant to be Guardsman squads, along with HWTs, etc. there's even a Leman Russ knock off based on the Matilda Tank. You just need to glance at them to know what they are, so by your metric should they be taken down too? 

 

Hell what about 90% of OPRs miniature range? The whole point of the factions was to have a way to use your GW minis without using GW rules, so the minis that they've then created for their factions are deliberately designed to be functionally usable as specific GW models, even if they have a slightly divergent aesthetic.

 

If the issue is just that Gharmaks models are not sufficiently distinct to pass legal muster then a basic IP lawsuit should have cleared that up simply. Personally I think that most of what I've seen should probably be fine if boarderline, but it's honestly a fairly subjective area (which is what makes the laws around this sort of thing such a cluster-:cuss:). But allegedly that isn't what is happening here. 

[TheVoidDragon]

1 minute ago, Evil Eye said:

That is absolutely not what's happening here and I think you know that.

 

Oh, so now you're just going to ignore the several posts others have made here trying to show what sort of thing "unfair competition" in italy covers, including product similarity / confusion / imitation and similar concepts? Right.

Edited 12 hours ago by TheVoidDragon

[Evil Eye]

1 minute ago, TheVoidDragon said:

 

Oh, so now you're just going to ignore the several posts others have made here trying to show what sort of thing "unfair competition" in italy covers, including product similarity / confusion / imitation and similar concepts? Right.

The sort of thing that has been refuted as firm moral ground for GW to stand on you mean?

[TheVoidDragon]

Just now, Evil Eye said:

The sort of thing that has been refuted as firm moral ground for GW to stand on you mean?

 

And again: That you think it's "morally indefensible" for the creator of something to try and stop someone else from infringing on that that is quite strange.

[NovemberIX]

I mean, I could be playing one page rules, so why does GW get to decide what my dwarf guild looks like? 

[Inquisitor lorr]

4 minutes ago, ThaneOfTas said:

You see I just flat out don't think that this is a good enough metric to judge if a model is okay or not.

 

If you had no knowledge of for example Halo, and saw a squad of 10 UNSC troopers next to a squad of Cadians, all that you'd see is some slightly up armoured knock off with different weapons. So should that mean that the new Halo Firefight game shouldn't be allowed to produce an expansion with basic infantry? 

 

Likewise, in my previous example, it's abundantly clear that Victoria Miniatures Space Aussies are meant to be Guardsman squads, along with HWTs, etc. there's even a Leman Russ knock off based on the Matilda Tank. You just need to glance at them to know what they are, so by your metric should they be taken down too? 

 

Hell what about 90% of OPRs miniature range? The whole point of the factions was to have a way to use your GW minis without using GW rules, so the minis that they've then created for their factions are deliberately designed to be functionally usable as specific GW models, even if they have a slightly divergent aesthetic.

 

If the issue is just that Gharmaks models are not sufficiently distinct to pass legal muster then a basic IP lawsuit should have cleared that up simply. Personally I think that most of what I've seen should probably be fine if boarderline, but it's honestly a fairly subjective area (which is what makes the laws around this sort of thing such a cluster-:cuss:). But allegedly that isn't what is happening here. 

I don’t necessarily disagree with much of what you’ve said. However, I think some of the examples are much more egregious than the ones you are talking about. The examples shared in this thread are, by any objective measure, at best treading a fine line and are clearly intended to be direct replacements  which rip off huge parts of the GW design. I just don’t think that’s okay. I would have the same view if it were the other way around. 
 

As I said before, if it were your products in these scenarios, can you honestly say you would be okay with other people doing this to you?