Frogboy Frogboy

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

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

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/

68,987 views 281 replies
Reply #226 Top

#224 by Skinner pictoratus - 12/22/2003 1:02:44 PM
Has TGT Soft ever said what they plan to do when Longhorn comes out and their patch is no longer good? I would be curious if they have ever addressed that with their customers. Surely they (TGT Soft customers) have to wonder what will happen.

They'll have found out long before then. Service Pack 2, from what I gather, will render the hacked dll useless.
Although given the way it's going, Longhorn will be released before it........  

Reply #227 Top
All I have to say is:

"Good luck and GO STARDOCK, YOU ROX!!!"

I REALLY hope that Stardock and Frogboy wins simply because Wincustomize is the best and so is Stardock and I wouldn't want them to have to go out of business!

S K U .. U .. TGT SOFT!
Reply #228 Top
I understand that this is a pile of sh$t. However, I just tried to understand why tgtsoft is doing what it is doing. I fully support stardock and frogboy. I am just tired of reading countless "tgtsoft sucks" posts. We all know they do, lets get beyond that.

And there already is a hacked dll for sp2. I don't know if it works right though.
Reply #229 Top
Those who can....Do.
Those who cannot....sue.

Pretty(and petty)immature. I'm taking your ball and going home.... >
Reply #230 Top
In my estimation, Frogboy should not bring Company business to a public forum...


If Stardock or Brad for that matter would have stolen let’s say, TGT’s logo or the layout of their website, then this would be a Company issue and/or business, but we are talking about TGT making a way to use the work of skinners (us) and applying it to their application program via replacement of the file extension. Therefore if the issue or problem involves the work produced by skinners (us) then I do think it’s a public matter and we have the right to know.
If I design an Icon Pack with an .ip extension to be use specifically with the Icon Packager program, what right does TGT have to take my design and replace that extension to be used with another program?
Reply #231 Top
Crazy Travis: You'd have to ask TGT Soft why they're doing what they're doing and how they figure it makes sense and is a smart thing to do. On the surface it appears they may have more to lose from such an action than gain. As a preemptive strike against SD taking legal action it would seem ineffective; this doesn't preclude SD from taking action or FB from filing a counter suit. Additionally, since the issue in question is a currently a beta product in development if I understand correctly, an injunction against TGT from distributing the product could be one possibility until the issue is resolved. Given crowded court calendars, if the issue gets to court, the case could take quite a long time, even years.

And when one goes to court the door doesn't just swing one way. The plaintiff doesn't necessarily hold all the cards. There's the discovery process. And it appears that litigation was not the only reasonable option in this case if TGT wanted to use SD's work. Licensing agreements are common between companies. I think usually the plaintiff needs to show harm and goes to court to be made "whole." In this case, a preemptive claim of harm by the plaintiff (at a time when the law does not appear to be on the side of copyright violators) when the suit is an attempt to prevent the defendant and his company from potentially filing suit to be made whole as a result of the plaintiff's current and potential future actions seems a bit wonky.

I would think if they were so sure of their case TGT wouldn't have filed suit at all.
[Message Edited]
Reply #232 Top
i wonder if they are hopeing that if they can sue frog boy they will get the ability to use his skins and themes without any compensation or his approval.. hence forth opening a door for "legal theft" of any artists skins and images, programs,etc. basically destroying any and all intelectual rites....... no ones works would be safe
Reply #233 Top
hence forth opening a door for "legal theft" of any artists skins and images, programs,etc. basically destroying any and all intelectual rites....... no ones works would be safe


I guess we all would have to stop skinning
Reply #234 Top
could be sig ,they filed suit cause they want to block stardock and froggy from sueing them cause tgt plan to use or exploit their work. is kinda like hey if we sue them they cant sue us for the copywrite infringements were going to do .is a pathetic attempt at theft plain and simple.
Reply #235 Top
I think that they simply DIDN'T....
Reply #236 Top
If that is the case sig then tgtsoft would be opening a barrel of monkeys that should have been left close. If they create precedence any upstart company could create havoc with a number of other companies that have large roots. I personally think that tgtsoft should never of sued and simply done what stardock asked them to do. However in their ignorance or arrogance they chose a different path. I hope this whole event ruins their name and ruins their business.
Reply #237 Top
tgtsoft is the company that started the 3rd party visual styles craze with the first software and tools. Still the best, tgtsoft software was featured on TechTV, Windows XP, the Official Magazine, Chip, and the book Microsoft Windows XP Power Toolkit. Style XP works in 11 languages


i got this from their own web site yet i could find nothing that stated when the company was formed. funny part is ive never even heard of the company til it was brought up here. maybe they contend that since (Acording to them) they started the whole skining thing, they should get to use any and all skinning progs and skins without permission or compensateing the authors...that would be like ford trying to sue auto paint manufacturers stateing they get a free supply of paint ...
dumb and dumber must be running the show there .....
Reply #238 Top
Well HG, the suit as described here would appear to be a strike against copyright or what constitutes protected works/products and the ability of copyright holders to hold others legally accountable for violations and infringements. So it's not just about FB, the issue is larger than that. Or could be.

And of course it does appear that TGT is suing as a preemptive strike against FB and SD suing them. But unless the law is quite different in Louisiana FB can file a counter suit to their suit for starters. Again, if TGT were so sure of their legal standing and that what they were doing was not copyright infringement, why sue at all? The plaintiff has the burden of proof, so to speak, so in this case it would seem to me they would have to show cause why FB's and SD's legal rights and recourse to the courts should be taken away from them. Perhaps TGT may think they have a better chance of making their case in this fashion rather than as a defendant in a copyright infringement suit, but it sounds a dubious hill to climb to me. Without seeing the actual causes of action for the suit, it's hard to tell what they're specifically alleging and the grounds for the suit.

It's not unheard of that sometimes lawsuits are filed to intimidate people and make them fold. Although in this case I wouldn't count on that happening. Still, it will be interesting to see what does (or doesn't) transpire.

SD's been around for what, 10 years? WindowBlinds has been skinning Windows since long before there was an XP. And other SD products like IconPackager have been around for some time also. I only heard of TGT Soft when XP came on the scene. That'd be 2001. But WB also was skinning XP in 2001, as I recall. (And WB with OB then could emulate the XP style with the start menu and taskbar on W98 and ME.) So as for StyleXP being the first to skin XP, that's debatable. Was it the first company to make money off a hacked XP .dll? That may well be so.
[Message Edited]
Reply #239 Top
WindowBlinds pre-exists TGT Soft's offerings by years. IconPackager came out I believe in 1997 or 1998.
Reply #240 Top
yes i agree this is about much more, its a much larger issue. if tgt wins it will set a precidence of legal theft of intelectual property, and open the door for others to follow. every body that uses a computer to make something, like a program or art will be effected. no ones intelectual property will be safe, includeing TGT's.
they may be their own demise.......

i couldnt imagin theyed win. that would mean every website graphic every prog for pc, every code, would be up for grabs.. and i doubt microsoft wants to share it's goodies for free .......
Reply #241 Top
If it were a 'test case' to enable the use/abuse of intellectual property surely one would choose a situation that had at least a snowflake's chance in hell of success....unless of course the intention is to fail admirably and reinforce the status quo....
Reply #242 Top
The problem here is that the suite was filed in La. That is not a state in which you want to be brought to court in. The juries there go nuts with how much money they make defendants dish out.
[Message Edited]
Reply #243 Top
I wouldn't worry about it, as it will probably be a judge only.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #244 Top
This doesn't appear to be a personal claims case where the plaintiff asks for damages because the hot coffee you sold him was hot and he spilled it on himself. TGT apparently is asking the court for a declaration, a legal decision, that exempts them from being held liable for copyright infringement by Stardock or, presumably, another court. As WOM said, those sorts of things are usually heard by a judge not a jury.

Yes Jafo, I'd imagine this is the kind of case which in some places would get laughed out of court or someone would be fined for bringing a frivolous lawsuit. But maybe they do things differently in La.
[Message Edited]
Reply #245 Top
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=TGTsoft&q2=Stardock&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

I think we all know who the winner of this fight will be!
Reply #246 Top
Hehe. Even Kona is more popular than TGTsoft. Kona clearly wins!

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=TGTSoft&q2=Kona&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

He's even more popular than Stardock.
Reply #247 Top
funny site. i laughed when i read the one that was "your momma" vs. "my momma" hehe
Reply #248 Top
And by a much closer margin:

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=Brad+Wardell&q2=TGTsoft&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

Brad Wardell takes on TGTsoft!
Reply #249 Top
I put my money on Brad in the third round.

Reply #250 Top
hm...I see icon packages are now available for download at ThemeXP.