Ok what are you guys reading it is not what i'm reading. to recap[...]
I'm sorry to say that this is pretty inaccurate - not only does it not match Paul's version of events, but it doesn't match Stardock's, either.
1. I think this starts too late in the timeline. If you really want to understand the case, you need to go back to 1988, to understand the timeline for the production and release of the original Star Control games, how the UQM project came to be, and how the IP changed hands from Accolade to Infogrames to Atari to Stardock. I don't think that making GalCiv like Star Control was ever a real factor: They are very different games, with different flavours of fun. I do agree that it would have been very helpful for Paul to make his IP claims more clear, earlier.
2. Sure, but note the 2013 misunderstanding. If Paul had known in 2013 that Brad was claiming the exclusive rights to the old games, I'm certain that there would have been a major disagreement.
3. This is pretty much completely wrong. SC3 was, by most accounts, a greatly inferior game that Paul, Fred, and Brad have all mocked on multiple occasions - it's one of the few things they agree on. P&F did want to eventually make a new Star Control game, though, (whether called "Star Control" or not) - they even tried a petition in 2007 to get Activision to let them.
4. Paul's announcement was on October 9, 2017, but he never tried to call the new game "Star Control". It was just called "Ghosts of the Precursors". He did initially refer to it as a sequel to Star Control 2, but later edited the announcement to call it a sequel to the Ur-Quan Masters.
5. You're correct that software companies generally own what their employees create on the job. But when the earlier games were created, Paul was not an employee of Accolade, and the IP rights for the works he created were governed by the specific contract that I linked in my earlier post. Brad received the records of that contract when Stardock bought Atari's assets.
6. It's important to note that "IP" can generally mean both copyrights and trademarks, so the language can be a bit confusing. When Paul is talking about "IP", he's usually talking about the copyright. When Brad talks about "IP", he's usually talking about the trademark. That's important here, because Paul's original contract gave different ownership to the trademark and copyright. So Paul is not telling Brad to remove any logo; he's telling Brad not to use any material covered by his copyright on material from the earlier games.
7. Again, Paul never said that he was calling his new game Star Control, but rather (initially) a sequel to Star Control. Stardock doesn't take down the games at this point; there is a delay of at least several weeks.
As for the UQM community, the way I see it, UQM isn't distributing Star Control 2, but rather is distributing the game that was part of the Star Control 2 product. That may sound like a thin difference, but it's much the same as how a generic drug manufacturer can distribute the exact same medication as a brand name manufacturer. Stardock probably disagrees with this view.
8. This seems accurate.
You might want to review the timeline at the start of this thread, but if you would like to get another perspective that's not directly from one of the litigants, I would also suggest looking at the fan-created page about the dispute.
Incidentally, we would love to get more input on that page from people familiar with Stardock's positions - just make sure to supply references for anything you add. Everyone is also welcome to double-check the references that are already there, and make sure they hold up. If you want to dispute something, comment on the associated talk page.