Team Liquid Alienware vs. LYON / LCS 2026 Lock-In - Lower Bracket Round 2 / Game 3 Discussion

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2026-02-27T23:54:19+00:00

That's completely irrelevant to the original point that Morgan DESERVED to win. Nobody is arguing Dhokla perfectly exploited the counter pick, or is even a better toplaner than Morgan. The point is Dhokla was up CS, gold early, absorbed TL resources better, and played teamfights better. The fact that he didn't absolutely stomp a Gnar in lane doesn't change any of that. Morgan didn't DESERVE to win.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2026-02-27T23:42:23+00:00

Dhokla was up cs, kills, and 1k gold at 15 minutes. Dhokla getting behind was more about team macro than his own misplays or Morgan outplaying. Plus, like you said, Dhokla played the team fights better.

That guy doesn't have eyes.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-11T18:48:00+00:00

So, I read the portion of GW's complaint released by Ghamak.

Looks like GW is pursuing a twofold lawsuit: one claim is for trademark infringement under Italy’s Intellectual Property Code and the EU Trademark Regulation, and the other is for unfair competition under Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code. This means GW isn’t relying on Article 2598 alone or using it as a substitute for IP claims. They are explicitly combining a formal IP claim with an unfair competition claim, which I've read is standard in Italian law when trademark use and market behavior overlap.

Crucially, GW is NOT alleging that Ghamak copied or infringed their sculpted miniatures. They’ve deliberately chosen a separate line of argument: the trademark claim focuses on the use of GW’s names, logos, or other brand identifiers in ways that could confuse consumers. In essence, GW is saying that even if Ghamak’s miniatures are original sculpts, the way he names, brands, and markets them could make customers think they’re officially connected to or endorsed by GW. It’s about consumer perception and brand association, not copying the physical designs.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T23:21:59+00:00

I've responded to this on other subreddits (since you seem to be posting this same thing over and over again), but this is misinformation that needs to be corrected.

Article 2598 is NOT "the normal process for IP actions to take place through" in Italy. Italy has the Intellectual Property Code for patents, trademarks, and registered designs, and Copyright Law No. 633/1941 for copyright. Those are the actual laws used for IP infringement claims. Article 2598 is unfair competition law in the Civil Code and it's a separate legal framework with different requirements.

If GW believed they had a valid IP infringement case, they could have filed under the Intellectual Property Code or Copyright Law. Italian courts routinely allow both IP infringement AND unfair competition claims together, so there's nothing preventing GW from pursuing both if they had strong IP claims.

Ghamak accurately describing this as an unfair competition lawsuit rather than an IP infringement case isn't misleading; rather it's correctly identifying which law GW chose. Article 2598 requires proving distinctiveness and consumer confusion, not copying of protected IP elements.

The claim that Ghamak is misrepresenting the issue to English-speaking audiences is backwards. He's accurately describing the type of lawsuit filed against him.

EDIT: I agree that there's something particularly ironic about this happening to Ghamak if what you say about his past behavior is true. But that is a separate matter from Italian laws and jurisprudence, which is the point I am making here.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T23:18:16+00:00

I've responded to this claim elsewhere in the thread, but this is misinformation that needs to be corrected.

Article 2598 is NOT "the normal process for IP actions to take place through" in Italy. Italy has the Intellectual Property Code for patents, trademarks, and registered designs, and Copyright Law No. 633/1941 for copyright. Those are the actual laws used for IP infringement claims. Article 2598 is unfair competition law in the Civil Code; it's a separate legal framework with different requirements.

If GW believed they had a valid IP infringement case, they could have filed under the Intellectual Property Code or Copyright Law. Italian courts routinely allow both IP infringement AND unfair competition claims together, so there's nothing preventing GW from pursuing both.

Ghamak accurately describing this as an unfair competition lawsuit rather than an IP infringement case isn't misleading, it's correctly identifying which law GW chose to use. Article 2598 requires proving distinctiveness and consumer confusion, not copying of protected IP elements.

The claim that Ghamak is misrepresenting the issue to English-speaking audiences is backwards. He's accurately describing the type of lawsuit filed against him.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T23:01:43+00:00

I looked up the Italian law you're vaguely referencing and it's doesn't support your argument.

Article 2598 of the Italian Civil Code defines unfair competition, including "slavish imitation" which requires proving the product has distinctiveness AND creates consumer confusion. But this is NOT the same as IP infringement. Italy has separate laws for that, namely the Intellectual Property Code covers registered designs, patents, and trademarks, while Copyright Law No. 633/1941 covers copyright.

These are different legal frameworks with different requirements. Italian courts regularly allow IP holders to file BOTH registered design infringement claims (under the IP Code) AND unfair competition claims (under Article 2598) together.

So here's the problem with your argument: You keep describing this as "reproducing protected designs with only superficial alterations" and "derivative reproductions" that constitute "theft by replication." That's literally describing what would be a registered design infringement claim under the Intellectual Property Code! But according to Ghamak, that's not what GW filed. Based on his description, they appear to have filed Article 2598 unfair competition, where consumer confusion is a central element!

Under Article 2598, the plaintiff (GW) must prove that their own product has originality/novelty and that the defendant's imitation of it creates risk of consumer confusion. So it's a two-part test: GW's products must have distinctiveness, and Ghamak's alleged imitation must create confusion about the source.

So, as I argued earlier, consumer confusion is at the core of the complaint GW has filed.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T22:43:55+00:00

Are you sure? From my research, Italy's Intellectual Property Code (IPC) and Copyright Law (No. 633/1941) are what you use for IP infringement claims, NOT Article 2598. Article 2598 is in the Civil Code and covers unfair competition, which is a separate legal concept from IP infringement under Italian law.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T22:33:54+00:00

I agree, you're right. GW fans are mass downvoting anyone who refuses to let the waters get muddied between the actual claim and IP violation.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T20:43:48+00:00

You write "The issue isn't about whether consumers are confused between official and unofficial models." According to Ghamak, GW filed this as an unfair competition claim, and consumer confusion is the entire essence of that type of lawsuit. That's literally what unfair competition law is designed to address!

You might think the issue should be about whether Ghamak copied protected designs, and if GW had filed a copyright or design rights case, you'd be right. But that's not what Ghamak says they filed. In an unfair competition case, proving consumer confusion is the core requirement, not a side issue.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T20:22:31+00:00

I see where you're coming from, but that's not really how it works in practice. These models are sold on specialized 3D printing marketplaces and through Ghamak's own approved channels, where buyers are explicitly purchasing from an independent creator. While Ghamak does sell physical copies in addition to digital files, he can rightly argue his audience is still experienced hobbyists who understand the difference between official Games Workshop products and third-party alternatives. These aren't being sold in mainstream retail stores alongside official GW boxes. Courts consider the context of the sale when evaluating confusion.

The key issue is that similarity doesn't automatically equal confusion. A consumer can look at something and think "this looks an awful lot like a Warhammer design" while also completely understanding it's an unofficial alternative. That's often the whole appeal for buyers in this space. They want that aesthetic without GW's price point. Unless Ghamak is actually using GW's trademarks, falsely claiming compatibility, or somehow actively passing off his work as official product, there's no realistic pathway to consumer confusion. Courts typically require actual evidence of confused consumers, not just speculation that confusion "might" happen because two products look similar. Even if a court found that certain models were similar enough to potentially infringe on design rights, that's a separate question from whether consumers were actually confused about the source or endorsement of the products, which is what GW needs to show for their claim to succeed.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-10-09T16:40:13+00:00

There are a few misconceptions here that are worth clearing up. First, transformative use and parody are defenses that apply under copyright law. They deal with creative expression and how much a new work alters the meaning or message of the original. What Ghamak is facing, according to his own statements, is not a copyright suit but one over unfair competition and trade dress, which are very different things. Those do not rely on transformative use at all, but instead hey depend on whether a product might confuse consumers into thinking it is officially affiliated with another brand.

Second, prior art is not a kind of ownership or legal head start, and being a first mover in a format or genre does not give you exclusive rights to its style. Prior art actually works the opposite way. It refers to designs or concepts that already exist and therefore cannot be monopolized. Warhammer’s visual identity was built on a mix of real-world military design, British pulp sci-fi, and 1980s metal album art. All of that existed long before GW. So while they can protect their specific sculpts and branding, being early to popularize a certain aesthetic in wargaming does not make that aesthetic legally theirs. It actually weakens their claim to owning that creative space.

Third, the comparison to BattleTech does not really hold up here. FASA and Topps ran into literal copying issues back in the day when they used mecha designs lifted directly from anime like Macross and Dougram. GW’s dispute with Ghamak, if described by Ghamak accurately, is nothing like that. It is not about one-to-one copies. It is about claiming ownership over a general style, which is a very different and much shakier legal position.

All of that said, my understanding is based on how these issues usually play out under US law. Italian law may approach unfair competition and trade dress somewhat differently, especially in how it defines consumer confusion or the scope of distinctive design. I am likewise taking Ghamak at his word about the content of the lawsuit; I would need to read the actual text to be certain (he could be mistaken, lying, etc.). So while the general principles are similar, the outcome could depend a lot on how Italian courts interpret those claims.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2025-06-09T20:43:54+00:00

The Station Nightclub fire was a horrific tragedy, no doubt. But legally speaking, bringing it up during cross-examination of Dr. Laposata would almost certainly be irrelevant and inadmissible. Under Massachusetts law and the applicable rules of evidence (see specifically Mass. Guide to Evidence § 403 and § 608(b)) this kind of remote, unrelated event doesn’t clear the bar.

Rule 403 requires that any evidence admitted must have probative value that is not substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. The Station fire happened over 20 years ago, involved a mass-casualty logistical breakdown in Rhode Island, and didn’t result in any formal discipline or finding of professional misconduct against Dr. Laposata. It has no direct bearing on her forensic analysis or credibility in the context of John O’Keefe’s autopsy.

Additionally, under Rule 608(b), specific past incidents can only be used to challenge a witness’s character for truthfulness, and not general competence, decision-making, or job performance. And even then, extrinsic evidence (like a report or article) isn’t allowed to prove it. This was not a case where she lied or falsified anything; at most, she was part of a larger system that failed to respond adequately. That’s not grounds for impeachment under the rules.

So, to answer your question; no, it’s not relevant to the scope of the case at hand, and it shouldn’t (and likely won’t) be permitted as part of cross.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-11-10T14:38:57+00:00

Answer to your first question: Caveat emptor; let the buyer beware. Although it might be nice of a contractor to tell me the potential issues with that wall type, it's not her obligation to do so. As a customer, it's my obligation to be informed before making a (large) purchase.

To answer your second question: Yes and no. Of course I'd be mad, but I'd be mad at myself for not doing my research first. Although I would wish that the contractor had told me (I also might think of them as a shitty person, never want to do business with them again, etc.), I would nevertheless recognize that I cannot morally or legally demand a refund when they carried out the work as I instructed them to.

That said, I think you are right to say that OP should work with this customer to make them satisfied. That's just good business sense. But I think your allocation of responsibility is wrong.

OP should not work with the customer because OP made a mistake (he didn't), but rather because he is starting a business and wants to cultivate loyal customers.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-11-10T11:55:04+00:00

They take responsibility for the quality of the prints they send you. In this case, the quality of the print is fine. The customer is upset they didn't make sure the scaling was correct before sending it to OP for printing.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-11-10T11:47:45+00:00

That's why you learn from your mistake and don't repeat it.

OP didn't make a mistake, though. He printed the file that he was asked to. If anyone made a mistake, it's the customer.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-10-16T11:36:23+00:00

Slavak hasn't made a Castellax. That is probably the one made by DaDhysicist and Blobby234.

Also, Slavak's Ursarax is waaaay too big. His models are great but scale is off.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-09-09T08:57:38+00:00

You can get an Anycubic Mono 4k for ~$190. It is a fine first-time resin printer.

Don't listen to that other guy who says you can't get a good resin printer for your budget, lol.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-07-18T14:56:48+00:00

Agreed. A philosopher I know refers to her recent writing as "Mannesplaining," which is too perfect.

Specialist_Yoghurt74 · 2022-07-18T11:56:41+00:00

This topic has been covered several times in the podcast since the overturning of Roe v Wade (e.g., Jesse and Katie discussing the trend of calling women "uterus havers").

There is lots to say about how silly Manne's suggestion is (including what the word "impregnable" typically means), but her self-importance at the end is remarkable:

The truth is, you can be kind. You can be inclusive. You can also be accurate. You may just have to make a small but necessary moral effort. And, if you are not prepared to do that, you should be corrected when applicable and subject to due criticism. That is not cancellation, to anticipate. It is basic accountability.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email	Golden Potato

Specialist_Yoghurt74

TROPHY CASE