Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Indeed. The case seems as follows:

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

No -- it's the other way around. The game people would need to prove that CBS/DSC producers had knowledge of the game's details prior to coming up with their ideas for DSC.

CBS does not need to prove the negative -- i.e., they do not need to prove that they did not engage in some possible scenario in which they could have possibly stolen the information. The plaintiff needs to prove that they did.

 

[Tuskin38]

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

[cultcross]

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

That's not how these things work. You don't get free disclosure from the defence in a nuisance lawsuit. Prove you've got substance to your claim, and you are then entitled to a response. One inference you might draw is from the fact that CBS haven't offered even a token settlement - they aren't worried.

 

[ozzfloyd]

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



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

That's on full display.

 

[Rahul]

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.

Why would they need to?

They would need to, in order to prove that there wasn't accessability to the Tardigrade. Then the case could have been dismissed.

Since they can't, it's quite possible someone at CBS saw the Tardigrade and copied the idea. Finding that person though is completely impossible short of totalitarian surveillance. Thus - IMO - they should judge the case based on the actual content - Is the FTL-Tardigrade too similar or not?

 

[BillJ]

Is the FTL-Tardigrade too similar or not?

I'd say no.

 

[BurnhamAll]

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



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

Which is exactly why all your posts are meaningless. You are prescribing meaning and arguments to something you have no clue what you're talking about. It's like when my college roommate told me he knew how to make a car engine run on water.

 

[Rahul]

That's not how these things work. You don't get free disclosure from the defence in a nuisance lawsuit. Prove you've got substance to your claim, and you are then entitled to a response. One inference you might draw is from the fact that CBS haven't offered even a token settlement - they aren't worried.

Yeah of course not - they're a big company.

And yes, if somebody has a lawsuit against you - somebody who created a thing that's publicly available, and you create a product afterwars that's eerily similar - and you have a document that would actually prove your innocence (a series bible with a date on it) - a document that would be easy to find nonetheless - you would show that. Instead of using legal technicalities that come down to the parties pocket money.

 

[Tuskin38]

Yeah of course not - they're a big company.

This would happen with any lawsuit, regardless of the size of either side.

 

[psCargile]

Producing a show takes time. Casting takes time. Is it likely they knew Stamets was going to be blond before the actor got the job? Would it be easier to change the color of the game character's hair when you saw who had the gig?

I think it is a case of parallel development, even with the coincidences. Sometimes that's how reality shakes out. It's happened to me a few times. I didn't see the need to sue anybody.

 

[BillJ]

And yes, if somebody has a lawsuit against you - somebody who created a thing that's publicly available, and you create a product afterwars that's eerily similar - and you have a document that would actually prove your innocence (a series bible with a date on it) - a document that would be easy to find nonetheless - you would show that. Instead of using legal technicalities that come down to the parties pocket money.

They will show their evidence when they are required to. That is how a court works. You don't dump everything to the public on the first hint that someone is suing you.

 

[dahj]

They would need to, in order to prove that there wasn't accessability to the Tardigrade. Then the case could have been dismissed.

Since they can't, it's quite possible someone at CBS saw the Tardigrade and copied the idea.

This is rubbish argumentation and utterly impractical in any legal proceedings.

By that logic for example I could sue 'em because a fanfic I wrote 20 years ago had a USS Discovery in it and they'd have to prove nobody on their staff has read it...

You're talking utter nonsense here.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

Since they can't, it's quite possible someone at CBS saw the Tardigrade and copied the idea.

"It's quite possible" is not enough. Again, you are asking CBS to prove the negative. You are asking them to prove that they didn't do some unspecified thing.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that I had someone hacked the plaintiffs' computers several years ago, and I stole the information, and then sold the information to CBS, who then used that hacked information to create the show.

According to you, I'd have to prove I didn't. I suppose I can show I don't have the hacker skills, but that doesn't mean I didn't secretly hire someone to do so. You could claim that of my dealings with the hacker and CBS were in person, so there would be no digital record, so even without a digital record that I did this, that doesn't mean that I didn't do this.

So considering this possibility and that I have no way of proving I didn't do it, I'm surprised I'm not named in the lawsuit.

 

[BillJ]

By that logic for example I could sue 'em because a fanfic I wrote 20 years ago had a USS Discovery in it and they'd have to prove nobody on their staff has read it...

When I was a kid, I played Star Trek in the backyard and the USS Discovery was my ship. Think it is about time CBS cut me a check and give me co-creator credit!

 

[Rahul]

Which is exactly why all your posts are meaningless. You are prescribing meaning and arguments to something you have no clue what you're talking about. It's like when my college roommate told me he knew how to make a car engine run on water.

I have no clue about the letter of the law. But it's pretty obvious what events were happening.

What's obvious is - these guys most likely copied his ideas - they were publicaly available, the final product is waaay too close to be coincidental - and now they using the law in a way to evade any kind of responsibility.

Of course they might legally be "right". But then again - even poll taxes were legal not too long ago. Doesn't mean that was right.

I'd say no.

That is a valid opinion. I'd think otherwise. But THAT IMO should be what the lawsuit should be about. NOT him having clairvoyance of the inside of the CBS corporation.

 

[BillJ]

NOT him having clairvoyance of the inside of the CBS corporation.

Motivation and reputation is always a key component to these things.

 

[cultcross]

Instead of using legal technicalities that come down to the parties pocket money.

Burden of proof on the accuser is not a "legal technicality", and what level of wealth would you suggest should flip the burden of proof?

 

[Rahul]

"It's quite possible" is not enough. Again, you are asking CBS to prove the negative.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that I had someone hacked the plaintiffs' computers several years ago, and I stole the information, and then sold the information to CBS, who then used that hacked information to create the show.

According to you, I'd have to prove I didn't. I suppose I can show I don't have the hacker skills, but that doesn't mean I didn't secretly hire someone to do so. You could claim that of my dealings with the hacker and CBS were in person, so there would be no digital record. But no digital record still doesn't mean it was not possible for me to do this.

So considering this possibility and that I have no way of proving I didn't do it, I'm surprised I'm not named in the lawsuit.

They'd have to prove the double negative to immediately throw the case out: "Look, our document describing the Tardigrade is older than the release of the Game" - Case closed.

They can't. Thus there should be a case. A case the guy still might loose!
But they could have accessed it - easily - thus IMO they should actually have to decide the case. As in: Actual look at some concepts and talk to people. Not immediately throw it out because the guy can't prove a double negative either.

 

[BillJ]

Not immediately throw it out because the guy can't prove a double negative either.

The court has to decide if there's enough evidence to proceed to trial. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Tuskin38]

They can't.

Not can't, they don't have to, yet.