Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[psCargile]

I can see it where if he did not sue CBS, and chalked it up to parallel development that had no inspiration on the other, CBS might have eventually told him to stop his game because of striking similarities to their property. We know who wins that fight. Even if he loses the case, there will be no legal doubt about what his intellectual property is. Looks like his game may be protected from CBS.

 

[Tuskin38]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was a question of timing.

That is, I though t I read that by the time the DSC creative team (and the public) had access to the Steam Game's thematic ideas, DSC was already running with their similar ideas.

If that's true (and someone please correct me if it isn't) , then it seems the game makers would need to prove that CBS and DSC gained access to information about the game prior to DSC's creation.

Currently the attorneys are arguing that a writer, which only joined the team very late in pre-production may have seen the game. But according to what we know, she joined the production after these ideas were already in place.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

So it's okay to steal ideas, as long as the ideas come from a place small enough to "not even merit that level of involvement" for the courts?

Yeah, that's what I was getting at in the beginning....

I can't tell if that's deliberate misrepresentation or if that's what you have actually convinced yourself that I was saying. Either way, it's impressively missing the point.

No, it's not okay to steal ideas. I'm contending that so far there's no evidence that any ideas were stolen. You keep falsely proceeding from the premise that the theft is already a given.

 

[cultcross]

CBS might have eventually told him to stop his game because of striking similarities to their property.

If his case here has merit, they wouldn't be able to; he argues his game predates Discovery, so if CBS want to argue he copied them, they have the same burden of proof - show that he had access to the material at the time the alleged similarity occurred.

 

[Rahul]

... but proving specific access to a specific source. Pretty fucking damning if a CBS office IP was accessing your website, for example.

But also pretty impossible to prove. I think neither is the plaintiff capable of re-creating the Internet behaviour of an entire company for months, nor will (or should) the court use it's ressources to have all people at CBS answering under oath wether they knew of the game before or not.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought there was a question of timing.

That is, I though t I read that by the time the DSC creative team (and the public) had access to the Steam Game's thematic ideas, DSC was already running with their similar ideas.

If that's true (and someone please correct me if it isn't) , then it seems the game makers would need to prove that CBS and DSC somehow secretly gained access to information about the game prior to DSC's creation.

That's really IMO much more the question: Do the timelines add up? If so, then "accessability" should be given, and the case judged on how similar the FTL-Tardigrade actually is. If the timeline doesn't add up - the thing can be thrown out.

You keep saying this as though the use of someone else's idea is a given here, but that is the very dispute the court are being asked to address. You're assuming the outcome then claiming any process which doesn't lead to your assumption is inherently unfair.

Well yeah, there are two things going on:
1) Could CBS have seen his ideas?
2) Is the idea close and specific enough to actually warrant a lawsuit?

What I'm seeing, is that the guy published his work (1), so CBS could have accessed it. More is impossible to prove. The real meat therefore would be question (2). But instead, they put unreasonable large burdens on the guy on (1) - find the exact person in a multi-million dollar corporation that saw your idea - all to be able to ignore (2). Which is using pro-corporate technicalities to avoid the actual interesting question of the case.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Currently the Plaintiff arguing that a writer, which only joined the team very late in pre-production may have seen the game. But according to what we know, she joined the production after these ideas were already in place.

That may be what I read. But what is the timing of the plaintiff reproving public knowledge of the game via Steam? Did that public access to the information on the game predate DSC's ideas, or did DSC's ideas come before the plaintiff's game ideas became public?

EDIT TO ADD:

That's really IMO much more the question: Do the timelines add up? If so, then "accessability" should be given, and the case judged on how similar the FTL-Tardigrade actually is. If the timeline doesn't add up - the thing can be thrown out.

Do they add up?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

The fact that Abdin's lawsuit is attempting to establish access by way of a person hired to work on Star Trek after the allegedly infringing elements had already been committed to the project is — what is the word I'm looking for? — telling.

 

[Tuskin38]

That may be what I read. But what is the timing of the plaintiff reproving public knowledge of the game via Steam? Did that public access to the information on the game predate DSC's ideas, or did DSC's ideas come before the plaintiff's game ideas became public?

That's what they're trying to prove here

 

[cultcross]

But also pretty impossible to prove. I think

Not at all. If it's your website, IP logs are easy as a few clicks. If it's a third party, approach them in discovery. You seem to think things are much harder to evidence than they are.

Well yeah, there are two things going on:
1) Could CBS have seen his ideas?

That's not the standard.

find the exact person in a multi-million dollar corporation that saw your idea -

Or, flipped around, prove that any one of a huge staff had access to your idea. Anyone.

 

[Tuskin38]

We do have a forum member here familiar with Law practice, they posted a lot about the Axanar case.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

That's what they're trying to prove here

That seems like a simple matter. They know the exact date the game went public on steam with their ideas for the "greenlight vote", and I'm sure CBS has information detailing when the premise detail ideas for DSC were being discussed. Do they match or not?

But if that were the main issue, then it seems odd that the game lawyers are trying to claim that a writer -- one who might have known about the game earlier than the public -- took the information about the game to CBS (although from what I gather, the timing of that writer joining DSC does not line up in favor of the plaintiff, either).

 

[Rahul]

Do they add up?

I don't know. Apparently maybe not for the single person they could find? But again - that's where I say it's really unreasonable to find the exact, one person.

In a broader sense: It looks like yeah - he published trailers and promo pictures of his stuff way before DIS premiered their Tardigrade. Now, if CBS could prove they had the Tardigrade in internal documents even before the game trailers? CBS would easily be in the clear. Since they aren't able to produce these documents - yeah... seems the timelines do add up.

 

[cultcross]

We do have a forum member here familiar with Law practice, they posted a lot about the Axanar case.

@jespah you have been summoned. *Lights ritual candle

 

[Tuskin38]

Since they aren't able to produce these documents

They haven't been asked to yet.

 

[Rahul]

That seems like a simple matter. They know the exact date the game went public on steam with their ideas for the "greenlight vote", and I'm sure CBS has information detailing when the premise detail ideas for DSC were being discussed. Do they match or not?

But if that were the main issue, then it seems odd that the game lawyers are trying to claim that a writer -- one who might have known about the game earlier than the public -- took the information about the game to CBS (although from what I gather, the timing of that writer joining DSC does not line up, either).

Indeed. The case seems as follows:

1) CBS is unable to prove they had the Tardigrade idea before the Game was published
2) The Game guy is unable to find and identify the single person that has seen his Game in the CBS company.

Which is some grade A bullshit if you ask me.

 

[cultcross]

Since they aren't able to produce these documents

Link for that? The plaintiff hasn't made a case to answer yet. Until they do, the defendant need prove diddly squat.

 

[dahj]

1) CBS is unable to prove they had the Tardigrade idea before the Game was published

Why would they need to?

 

[ozzfloyd]

Note to self: do not ask Rahul for legal advice.

 

[BillJ]

2) The Game guy is unable to find the single person that could have seen his Game in the CBS company.

Maybe they are wearing concrete galoshes now?

 

[Rahul]

Link for that? The plaintiff hasn't made a case to answer yet. Until they do, the defendant need prove diddly squat.

Would they have been able to, they would have shown them and the case would have already been dismissed.

Note to self: do not ask Rahul for legal advice.

That's good advice, I'm not a lawyer.