Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"
- Thread starter PicardSpeedo
- Start date
- Status
When you are asked, as Madam Jespah stated. The discovery process is at the point where the plaintiff needs to prove actual link between CBS production crew and the timeline of development. Thus far, it doesn't sound like the plaintiff has made a specific enough connection to request the information, or haven't done it appropriately.
Because they don't need to.
Nothing is going to change public perception on this matter-period. CBS is evil to those who think thusly, and vice versa. Those who look at the game and see it being linked, no matter the evidence, will reject CBS' claim out of hand.
Last edited:
Oh, I did. Again: For CBS it's the smart thing to do. I get it. They are going to get through with it.
The thing is though, it looks suspiciously like the result will be "lack of evidence", not "proven innocence". Which, legally, for CBS is the same. It's just not that great publicity, and looks suspicious, if they are credibly accused of stealing ideas, for a show millions of people saw, and they're not even trying to disprove that in court, but entirely focus on staying out of legal repercussions and hoping the other guy tangles himself up in technicalities.
Because they haven't been asked to yet.
Besides, as fireproof78, it doesn't matter who wins in the eyes of the haters, they'll still dislike them.
That part is not entirely true: For the public perception the way this trial ends will be pretty important.
Right now - I see a strong connection between the game and the show. If things continue like now - guy being unable to prove the "link" (specific person in the company that accessed it), and CBS winning only because of that, I'll probably think CBS isn't really clean.
If this guy finishes presenting his evidence, and then CBS presents somthing to disprove that - I will believe CBS! Just right now - with CBS offering nothing at all, and this guy fighting against windmills - I think the situation is a bit fishy behind the scenes.
Please read what people are telling you, because it really sounds like you're not when you make these statements.
Trying to tell your story when you don’t have to is how you lose.
If the case is dismissed because plaintiff can’t even articulate a valid complaint, public perception will be that the lawsuit was frivolous. That benefits CBS.
I am skeptical of this part. If the lawsuit ends as being tossed out due to lack of evidence people will still accuse CBS of wronging the guy. If the case is ruled in CBS' favor due to any failing on the part of the plaintiff those suspicious of CBS will continue to be suspicious.
There is little evidence that CBS could reveal that will change those minds. So, CBS is wise and not revealing information until asked for. Because they will not win either way in the court of public opinion.
You can't reveal something that doesn't exist.
Next up: Alec Peters returns to directing, helms ST4 for Paramount, depicting the Klingon-Federation war in the Kelvin timeline.
I dunno, that might hurt the brains at Midnight's Edge.
"It's Kelvinverse, therefore I must hate! But it's Alec Peters, therefore I must support! Error. Error!!!"
You proceed with a false assumption as anyone who still supports Alec Peters doesn't have a functioning Brain left.
Let me know if that ever happens.
Ditto.
Do you realize that what you are essentially saying is that...
CBS should purchase the Rope;
Tie the Noose;
Toss it over a really strong Tree Limb;
And then hand Abdins' lawyers the other end while putting their collective heads in said noose.
Ya know, even in the Old West they didn't make the convicted do all that.
Last edited:
I don’t think you’re the arbiter of public perception.
Once again, burden of proof on the accuser is not a "technicality", it is the foundation of the legal system.
Quite frankly, this chap is only in this bind in the first place because of internet lawyers telling him he should blatantly sue because CBS stole his idea. The problem of course is that those people don't have to prove anything, they can just cast aspersions from the sidelines. It is the plaintiff who now faces the spotlight of the legal system and must prove the claim.
You proceed with a false assumption as anyone who still supports Alec Peters doesn't have a functioning Brain left.
It ain't firing on all cylinders..........
- Civil and criminal are really different areas of the law. There's no alibi, accuser, or conviction. It's a plaintiff and proof to the contrary (it's not technically 'evidence' until entered into evidence by a court during trial, BTW -- this is yet another word in common ordinary parlance which means something different in legal practice).
- Standards of proof also differ. There are 3 standards: beyond a reasonable doubt (most criminal matters); preponderance of the evidence (most civil matters); and clear and convincing evidence (can be either, and it tends to be for fraud or inheritance cases or taking someone off life support. None of that applies herein).
- Even the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean prove beyond any doubt. Did Timothy McVeigh carry out the Oklahoma City bombing? Yes, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Could aliens have swooped in and done the deed themselves? Highly unlikely -- and immaterial, as the tiny nugget of doubt such a theory might engender isn't enough to wash away the proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- For fans who will not be satisfied unless CBS is guilty, guilty, guilty, they're not going to care about proof standards. And there is no need to prove perfection -- and I'm talking about plaintiff! As for the defense, they have NO burden of proof. The burden won't shift unless there's a counterclaim (there isn't one) or the plaintiff raises enough of a concern that something could really be there (they haven't hit that threshold).
- The likelihood of there being a trial is virtually nil. That's not this case in particular; it's that trials are rare. This case ending before a trial is way more of a certainty than whether your local grocery store will have fennel in stock this week. Anyone who sees that as sinister might want to offer up their entire salary for the courts to hire more judges, bailiffs, and court reporters, and build more courtrooms. Pushes to end cases early tend to (at least in part) be resource-driven.
- However, they are also driven by a push to get people to settle their differences privately, rather than involve the court system. Hence the rise of mediation and arbitration.
- Oh, and surprise last-minute proof is cinematic/television garbage. If something last-minute came in, the other side would, at minimum, have an idea it was being sought (e. g. we just found a witness in the jungles of Brazil!). A case would never go forward; it would be recessed for quite a while, to give the other side a chance to prepare. Gotcha games don't exist in the real world of the law.
The side by side images for the characters are utterly meaningless and, frankly, could be seen as prejudging when it comes to the casting of Sonequa Martin-Green. Not all African-Americans look alike -- but you wouldn't know that from what the claim is alleging. Putting a medical person in white is standard; it's practically along the lines of scènes a faire. The only slight leg plaintiff has to stand on is the tardigrade, a real creature which cannot be copyrighted. The usage differs, and the fact that real tardigrades can survive in deep space means associating them with space was a more or less inevitable fiction idea.
Plaintiff's only hope is to show access to his idea, at the right time, and copying thereof. He's shown neither. Defense doesn't have to produce show development documents unless they're subpoenaed. If they haven't been, then defense doesn't have to do squadoo.
And furthermore, yes, there are going to be some people who will call foul. They will call foul no matter what. Nothing will satisfy them beyond the utter destruction of Discovery (again, I find such a wish bizarre). If they are so hellbent on seeing what they feel would be justice served, then I suggest they pool their monies and buy the plaintiff the services of lawyers who know WTF they are doing.
As far as I'm concerned, the above quote says it all quite succinctly and to the point, with little to no room left for debate beyond "I Hate DISCOVERY AND The US Court System".
Therefore, while I will continue to read any further posts in this thread, I'm done repeating myself.
- Status
