LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SF-LIT Archives


SF-LIT Archives

SF-LIT Archives


[email protected]


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT Home

SF-LIT  July 1998

SF-LIT July 1998

Subject:

Fw: Tri-D Chess in court...prayers, PLEASE

From:

rjriley <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science Fiction and Fantasy Listserv <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 26 Jul 1998 19:56:23 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (149 lines)

I thought readers of this forum would be interested in this case.

Ronald J. Riley www.rjriley.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Bartmess <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sunday, July 26, 1998 4:42 AM


If anyone on this list hasn't heard, the lawsuit against the Franklin
Mint is on the move.  All the facts are in the hands of the judge
charged with summary judgement on the case's prime legal point, and we
now see if the case law my lawyer has cited is enough to prove my
ownership of the rules, or if they fall into the hands of the Franklin
Mint.
   I am very scared.  If I win, great; Justice is served.  If I lose,
well, at least I did everything possible to try and bring Golieth to
heel.  But if I do lose, there is the chance they will try and be
vindictive and try to force me to pay their legal fees incurred in the
filing.   I am just a Regular Joe...I had to go into hock to fight this
case, and *that* was with a probono lawyer.  Please pray for me, and
that justice will be served.

----------------------Useful Web Sites----------------------
If these links fail, try twice�the server is irregular.  Also, any
search engine told to find "Andrew Bartmess" should get you to the
official site.

The original Tri-D Chess rules (c) 1977 by Andrew Bartmess are at:
           http://home.interhop.net/~bag/original.htm
The true story of the Franklin Mint's taking of those rules is at:
           http://home.interhop.net/~bag/tactical.htm
With current updates on the lawsuit at:
           http://home.interhop.net/~bag/update.htm
The ordering information for the 4.0 Federation Standard version
of the rules as (c) by Andrew Bartmess, the original author, are at:
          http://home.interhop.net/~bag/startrek.htm
Some enhancements to that game (c) 1997 by Andrew Bartmess are at:
           http://home.interhop.net/~bag/rev3d.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------


  The standard press release follows, if you don't know about this
case.  If anyone has friends in the media, please pass this email along.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

  The Franklin Mint is being sued by Tiger Woods for using his likeness
without permission.  They are being sued by the Estate of Princess Di
for using her image without permission.  They are powerful and
unscrupulous, and they've tried to cheat me as well, by using my words
to make a bundle of money.  I have spent four years fighting them, and
have sold my revised rules over the internet to countries around the
world.   If you want a "little guy battles the corporate giant" story,
here it is:

  In 1977 I published the rules to STAR TREK's Tri-D Chess under my own
name.  The Franklin Mint has since stolen my words, used them as a
spring-board to a $240+ collectible, and made a fortune.  When I caught
them at it, they lied to me that their rules were not my words, and told
me to get lost.  They have since stolen my words a second time with the
production of a STAR TREK: TNG tri-d chess board.  **They are lying in
print to consumers that they wrote my rules.**

     I am fighting this in court, but they have tried to strong-arm me
into dropping the suit by threatening me with their defense costs (they
claim my lawsuit is "frivolous".)  Both established case law from the
era and the original publisher say I own the rules.  The powerful
Franklin Mint is counting on the fact that I won't be heard; their
high-priced lawyers may have more power than my pro bono one.  Please,
PLEASE pass this along to anyone you know in the media.  I won't let the
big guys win because I didn't try to fight this injustice.

     If you bought a Franklin Mint STAR TREK Tri-D chess set, or just
want to know more about the REAL game behind it, please read this.  I am
the original author of the chess rules that the Mint is pirating for
their own use, and my lawsuit has been filed.  The Franklin Mint doesn't
want you to know the following:

        In 1978, as a sixteen-year-old in high school, I wrote a set of
chess rules that described how to play STAR TREK's Tri-D chess.  No
rules existed before that time; it was merely a set-prop on the old STAR
TREK TV show.  I sold these rules for one-time publishing to _The STAR
TREK Giant Poster Book_, a national periodical that went out of business
shortly thereafter.  Over the years, I have re-written the rules several
times, and self-published them...all revisions bear my copyright.

        Three years ago, I found out that the Franklin Mint was selling
a $200 Trek Chess set.  I wrote them to make sure they were not using my
rules, and sent a full info-pack with the updated rules, the original
article, and all documentation.  Two months later, having no answer, I
phoned them up, and was assured that their rules looked nothing like my
rules.  (This, I later learned, was a bold-faced  lie.)  When I
pressured them for a copy, they finally mailed them to me...they match
almost word-for-word.

        I have spent the last three years of my life tracking down the
principles in the case, including a publishing magnet in England (Felix
Dennis) who says I own the rules.  I am suing the Mint , but they say I
am merely harassing them, and they intend to sue me for whatever legal
fees I cost them.  I don't think it is "frivolous" to have the case
decided by a judge; they are leaning on me to drop the case.

        The website has connected me with over 250 dissatisfied
purchasers of the Mint's chess set, and I have become the "answer man"
for all chess questions on their board, as they cannot explain  the
original rules (the ones they claim they produced in-house) enough to
help confused purchasers.  I have been told that the Mint "does not view
the rules as being integral to the product" but would YOU buy a
boardgame you could not play?

        I was also told that the entire idea for the board originated
with a Mint staffer, who saw a bootleg xerox of my original article at a
SF convention, and took it to his bosses at the Mint.  Their product
would not EXIST if it were not for my rules, and they have been sold
*worldwide* at $200 US.

       My  revised 1997 Federation Standard 4.0 version of the rules is
available at this Website, along with a sample game, the Mint's
"official" (lying) letter of response, and updates on the court case.
       Please surf the web-site, and look at the official Mint response
letter, where they again lie that they produced the rules themselves.

        They are almost word-for-word my rules.  These bastards have
made hundreds of thousands of dollars on the case. I am risking
everything to have my day in court.  They are counting on the fact that
I don't have the resources to let people hear about this.  The web-page
has helped some, but I need to pass this injustice along to protect
myself against their legal firepower.  They are morally wrong on this; I
believe them to be legally  wrong as well.
        If you have any contacts within the print, television or radio
media that might find this battle as interesting, please pass this email
along, and  if you do, please let me know at this email address.  It is
a lonely battle,  fighting this.

     They took my words and lied to me that they hadn't. The case
against  the Mint is in discovery and headed for court, but I am fearful
that  their expensive lawyers are somehow going to screw me over; they
view my claim as "frivolous" (or want me to go away) and I am fearful
that they will win.  They have openly lied to me during this thing, and
have stolen my words TWICE to sell thousands of copies of their $200
Star Trek collectable.  I have obtained a printed copy of their
"rebuttal letter", which they send to board owners who see the webpage
and complain that I have been shafted.  In that letter (link below) they
outright lie that they produced the rules themselves, which I CAN prove
is false.  I need to find some media outlet that would be interested in
publishing this before I may have to sell my house to cover this.
Please check out the links and pass this email along.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager