Plus that whole "presumption of innocence" thing. I hear that's a big deal in courts too.
Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"
- Thread starter PicardSpeedo
- Start date
- Status
Fixed it for youApparently to some folks, that has become very overrated where corporations are involved.
STD has really hurt my fragile little canon. It was so perfect before they ruined it. How could those makers live with themselves?
What? It's called burden of proof on the accuser. They made the claim (copyright infringement), they have to provide evidence to make a case. That's how courts are supposed to work.
Given the timeline of the Show's development in relation to who was named, there's honestly still no case as the Tartigrade navigator aspect was a known part of the show BEFORE said writer joined the series writing staff.
Considering said lawyer hadn't paid his license fees in New York when this whole thing started (and had to AFTER he filed the first complaint to be recognized to practice law there) - I'd say: "In a Crackerjack Box".
Basically prima facie evidence.
Wow. That blew up pretty fast. So I'm not gonna' respond to everyone seperately, but as a whole:
Of course there needs to be evidence! But the "evidence" should be the content itself, NOT the pocket of either side!
And we're talking about copyright of ideas. This is not "theft", like of an object or something. This is about ideas coming up somewhere. If I went to my insurance company and say "my wallet was stolen", I would have to prove that the wallet actually was stolen.
On the other and, if I were to create a SF-show called "Space Trek", featuring a logical alien called "Mr. Spork" - nobody would care that I have ever seen Star Trek before. Hell, it would virtually impossible for CBS to prove I have ever seen Star Trek before! They simply can't, short of them tracking my online traces on message boards - which would be really out of proportion.
No, in this case, the courts wouldn't care: They would deem my product waaay too similar to an existing one, and judge based on that. And they should do that! On that alone. Similarly: They should judge on the idea of the Tardigrade: Is is the "Mr Spork" of Trek? Or is it reasonably close to a Dune -> Tatooine transformation, where the final product might is clearly enough of an alteration that it can stand alone? (Note: George Lucas was fearing a lawsuit very much - he never feared the other side would have to "prove" he read Dune, which they never would have been able to!)
Of course there needs to be evidence! But the "evidence" should be the content itself, NOT the pocket of either side!
And we're talking about copyright of ideas. This is not "theft", like of an object or something. This is about ideas coming up somewhere. If I went to my insurance company and say "my wallet was stolen", I would have to prove that the wallet actually was stolen.
On the other and, if I were to create a SF-show called "Space Trek", featuring a logical alien called "Mr. Spork" - nobody would care that I have ever seen Star Trek before. Hell, it would virtually impossible for CBS to prove I have ever seen Star Trek before! They simply can't, short of them tracking my online traces on message boards - which would be really out of proportion.
No, in this case, the courts wouldn't care: They would deem my product waaay too similar to an existing one, and judge based on that. And they should do that! On that alone. Similarly: They should judge on the idea of the Tardigrade: Is is the "Mr Spork" of Trek? Or is it reasonably close to a Dune -> Tatooine transformation, where the final product might is clearly enough of an alteration that it can stand alone? (Note: George Lucas was fearing a lawsuit very much - he never feared the other side would have to "prove" he read Dune, which they never would have been able to!)
Yep. Coincidence isn't enough for this guy to get a payout from CBS.
Which it is. The court are asking for evidence that CBS accessed the property they allegedly infringed. The first part of the test to prove the infringement. I really don't see what this has to do with 'pockets'.
Your counter example is ridiculous. If this game had been on network TV for fifty years and be a common pop culture reference point, the court would be happy to accept that you were aware of it.
Well, "access" was clearly possible. He published enough of his work on a public website.
But proving WHEN and WHERE this access took exaclty place is impossible - again: Would Herbert ever have been able to prove Lucas had read "Dune"? No. It was enough that his book was around.
The real case should be "substantial similarity". THAT'S the thing that - in a fair justice system - would be the thing debated on. CBS could really make a case their Tardigrade is different enough. But that's not what they're doing: They're using legale loopholes protecting big corporations encoded by lobbyists. They would be stupid not to. It just shows how utterly broken the court system is at this point.
I don't see anything unfair going on, seriously. The complainant has made a complaint and the court is covering all of its bases like it should.
I have no horse in this particular race, but a tardigrade alone isn't going to be enough to prove anything.
Defined as?
Again, entirely ridiculous counter example. A better one would be an RPG in a TrekBBS thread. And you could prove access to his game, available from one source, quite easily. Through that source.
You don't get to make cases on some of the points to prove.
As I said: Disney employs people sorting throw Indie material to copy in their own work.
They will NEVER let any of the official "writers" have that direct access though! Thus it can never be proven in court. That's in cases way more obvious than in this one. It's not CBS that wrote this law - it's Disney. Probably quite literally and directly.
If you want to protect copyright, you don't have to prove the exact point in time the other party has accessed your work if the work itself is too close:
If LADA makes a car, that is very obvious a VW beetle in all but the brand sign, VW doesn't have to prove in an American court where they might have gotten the building plans for it. It's enough that it's a direct copy to stop it from being distributed it in America. Creative property - in civilised societys - kinda' works similar: If it's too close, you have to pay royalties. Period. The only hurdle is that the other guys must have actually published enough of it. Which is the case here. It's just that this system has been entirely neutered if you don't have backing of a big company: Now the case isn't decided anymore on the content (the inner mechanics of the LADA-Beetle-copy), but by stuff that is unprovable: When and where exactly did LADA obtain the construction manual? Can't they have accidentally come up with the exact same engine? Prove the direct point of access! The general availability of Beetles doesn't count; you have to find the individual worker that actually reverse-engineered it!
That's stupid.
Exactly.It's also been shown that he didn't actually put all his game ideas together in one cohesive piece and in one place till after the lawsuit was filed when he went for his copyright.
Kinda sorta like the closing barn door metaphor.
One example is the character he compares to Stamets was posted AFTER Anthony Rapp had be cast, not before.
- Status
