But again, the question isn't "credit for the game" because that has nothing to do with any legal distinction, but rather who owns the Trademark rights. As far as I can tell, (doing a quick Google search), the 3 words fame, reputation and goodwill show up in many trademark claims and seem to be a standard and are not something created by Stardock to defame Fred and Paul. Again, if Paul and Fred had consulted their lawyer before talking to Ars Technica (or if Ars Technica would have actually done any real research or talked to their own lawyer) they would realize that was not a slight against them.

did anybody even bother to read the Ars Technica article ?
the mentioned phrase only comes up in the article in the list describing Stardock's main allegations. with no further comment to it.
The controversy of Stardock alleging that Ford and Paul are not the creators of Star Control doesn't involve that phrase at all.

the claim from Stardock that Ars Technica highlights because it seems to "contradict reality":

That is simply not true at all. Ford and Reiche were not only the leads on SC1/2; they did the majority of work (and went months without pay to finish SC2). Ford was the lead programmer and did the majority of the coding; Reiche was the lead designer/writer and created the universe. This is a well-known fact. The original contract very clearly names Reiche and Ford as the ones who will design and implement three games, not just people who Accolade are bringing on to help with their project. The original game releases have a copyright notice with their names, and Accolade had to get permission to make SC3 without them. They are in fact the creators of Star Control.

Here's what Greg Johnson (an important game designer in his own right) who was actually there said on Stardock's forum:

The first thing Brad does in that post is to include the front and back covers of the original PC release of Star Control II. Here's where I noticed a funny little thing, of which I provide a snip attached below: To me, that sums up pretty much the actual state of things regarding Star Control. The game itself is the property of its two creators. Marketing material, box art, whatever, and the name "Star Control" was the property of Accolade, now presumably in the hands of Stardock.

Yet here we have Stardock trying to claim Star Control as his own by diminishing the role Fred and Paul played in developing the games, as though they were simply two guys hired by Accolade to manage the team responsible of the two titles. Bizarre.

Reminds of that one time that Brad tried to pull the wool over everyone's eyes by blaming everyone and everything but him on the clusterfuck that was Elemental: War of Magic when it first launched, despite being clear that it was his responsibility, and one clearly demonstrated by his own public statements prior releasing the game.

Yep. Wardell probably thought it was pretty subtle and clever move, but now the timing looks quite suspicious in retrospect. According to Fred and Paul's complaint, Wardell started threatening litigation in October even before Ghosts was announced (presumably they have e-mails to back this up, especially since they gave exact dates for most of it).

And I wanted to give Stardock the benefit of the doubt. I'm a founder (at the cheaper tier); I even defended them online in the past. Even after the controversy went public I wanted to believe it was a misunderstanding and both sides were acting in good faith. But Stardock looks really bad now.

Absolutely. Other people have already pointed out the copyright notices on the actual discs too. There is no doubt that the creators AND copyright holders of SC1+2 are Fred and Paul.

So on the one hand we seem to have Stardock claiming that Fred and Paul aren't even the creators let alone copyright holders (which is obviously BS) and on the other hand, F&P claim that the original agreement with Accolade was dissolved and that the trademark (i.e. name etc.) reverted to them.

It really seems like F&P have the stronger case if they can prove the dissolution clauses came into effect. Certainly the mess with Atari/GOG back in 2011 suggests it's true.

Their argument appears to be that no one owns the trademark because it expired from disuse, not that it reverted back to F&P with the other stuff. NAL, but the dead trademark seems to be more questionable than most of their other points - I imagine that since they got sued first, they decided to just throw the kitchen sink back. If/when there's a settlement I would guess Stardock keeps the trademark, though not with as expansive an interpretation for it as Stardock is claiming.

Ah yes, I misremembered the article. The termination of the Accolade deal causes everything but the trademark to revert, which obviously includes the publishing deals (and in fact the IP for SC3). This makes sense, as F&P's original complaint with Stardock was them selling the old games in bundles with their new game and putting the games on Steam without their permission. So yeah, it's looking like the trademark would indeed have gone Accolade -> Atari -> Stardock, but none of the publishing rights would have gone that way.

Who are you to say that just isn't true? And you seem to KNOW a lot. How clearly Fred and Paul are this that and the other thing. Fact is you don't. You have no idea. I have no idea. Just as the rest of us really have no real idea who actually has legal ownership over this.

All of these claims came out of the legal document and need to be viewed in regards to their legal definitions. It's not some guy on a forum claiming "it's a well-known fact". If it were such a "well-known fact", we probably wouldn't have such a legal dispute, Atari wouldn't have sold ownership rights which they may or may not have actually owned, etc.

But since you seem so adamant to bold portions of a quote to support your view, let me throw your quote right back at you...

From Greg Johnson...It's pointless for people on a board to guess what's really going on behind the scenes or to judge who is right or wrong.

But apparently that is what you and so many others are doing because you are too much of a sheep to clickbait media.

You or I are not privy to the legal agreements made, how they are worded, what they entail, and for you to claim some copyright statement from the original game proves anything is just foolish.

This whole "creator" thing is completely overblown. Using legalese, in a court submission, Stardock seems to be pointing out that the Star Control games were made (created) by many individuals who contributed to it in various fashions. That is all there is to it. And frankly, if anything is clear in this situation, that part is clearly true. Not even close to "bizarre". But you can thank the clickbait media for that one.

As I see it, Fred and Paul did themselves a disservice by bringing this up. This will not help them in their legal case at all. Because when this case is decided it will be the actual courts that decide, not the court of public opinion. Judges are usually not very happy when people try to take the case to the public while a court case is in progress.

And given that one aspect of this case is whether the Trademark has been tarnished or damaged by Fred and Paul's actions, if the courts find Stardock owns the rights, then all this chatter is further evidence of that damage and could result in additional damages being awarded to Stardock all due to an ill-advised blog post.

I mean whether or not those two guys built that game on their computers over a period of several months in 1986 or something doesn't make a difference to what a judge decides as the right course of action here in interpreting how the law applies to that document and the current situation based on the legal language set forth in the contract and the arguments supplied by the council.

I say right but I really should say this particular.

From https://forums.stardock.net/486284/page/5 ( Reply #114 )

You would think the developers would be happy that people want their older games and have an easy legal way to get them.

Oh my! what a shietstorm :(

Given that it was Fred and Paul who open-sourced SC2 I don't think that's in question. No one is trying to stop the old games being sold outright, both parties just believe they are the ones with the right to sell the old games. Make sense?