Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[gblews]

^ Oh, it did settle. I was under the impression the case had gone to trial and a judgement issued against Axanar. This case appeared to be a dead bang winner for CBS at trial yet they still let Peters off the hook. CBS knew and knows, that once a case goes before a jury anything can happen. It's just not worth the risk for them.

Was the amount of money Peters collected to make movie the reason CBS filed their lawsuit?

 

[DaveyNY]

Possibly, but it's way more likely that he was outright using copyrighted Star Trek material to make a buck and thought he could get away with it.
CBS landed on him like a ton of bricks.

 

[Succubint]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/20/...s-settled-lawsuit-paramount-star-trek-fanfilm

Judging by this, Peters did pretty much lose and is lucky he settled with CBS.

 

[carlosp]

In today's AxaMonitor Daily: Facing March 19 deadline Tardigrades attorneys want more time to find CBS connection to game. They claim CBS hasn't been forthcoming with requested evidence and want the judge to issue a motion to compel discovery. You can subscribe here to read the story in today's newsletter.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Oh, it did settle. I was under the impression the case had gone to trial and a judgement issued against Axanar. This case appeared to be a dead bang winner for CBS at trial yet they still let Peters off the hook. CBS knew and knows, that once a case goes before a jury anything can happen. It's just not worth the risk for them.

Was the amount of money Peters collected to make movie the reason CBS filed their lawsuit?

If you look at the settlement between CBS and Peters, it's completely favorable to CBS, and it achieves all of the stated and perceived goals of CBS. It's really not possible to look at it fairly and think that it's CBS who blinked out of fear of going in front of a jury. If either party blinked in the "staring contest," it was the other party.

 

[gblews]

If you look at the settlement between CBS and Peters, it's completely favorable to CBS, and it achieves all of the stated and perceived goals of CBS. It's really not possible to look at it fairly and think that it's CBS who blinked out of fear of going in front of a jury.

You can't look at the settlement as "blinking', settlements in and of themselves are generally not admissions of liability or non-liability, despite the fact that in this case one of the "terms" of the settlement agreement was an admission of liability by the defendant.

The point is, CBS had some incentive to settle the case because of the uncertainties of a pending jury trial. Axanar had MUCH more incentive to settle the case because of the uncertainties of a pending trial and because Axanar's chances of winning were minute and losing would have ruined defendant financially.

In recognition of the risks and uncertainties of trial present for both parties, they agreed to "purchase" that risk, taking the case out of the hands of judge and jury. Even though CBS's chances of losing at trial were extremely low, why take the risk? To an extent, they both "blinked".

 

[CorporalCaptain]

In recognition of the risks and uncertainties of trial present for both parties, they agreed to "purchase" that risk, taking the case out of the hands of judge and jury. Even though CBS's chances of losing at trial were extremely low, why take the risk? To an extent, they both "blinked".

I would say that since CBS evidently *got* literally everything they were seeking from the lawsuit in the settlement itself, they had no reason to do anything but settle as soon as, shall we say, the opportunity to settle presented itself.

So, that's going to be "no." No, they did not both "blink." You can't even say that anyway, when you've also said this:

You can't look at the settlement as "blinking'

 

[fireproof78]

It's not "blinking" if you go for a settlement in which you get what you want, as well as protect your property, and avoid spending a whole bunch money on a trial.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

It's not "blinking" if you go for a settlement in which you get what you want, as well as protect your property, and avoid spending a whole bunch money on a trial.

Exactly.

 

[Noname Given]

You can't look at the settlement as "blinking', settlements in and of themselves are generally not admissions of liability or non-liability, despite the fact that in this case one of the "terms" of the settlement agreement was an admission of liability by the defendant.

Sorry, you CAN when a Defendant (up until said Settlement) was saying:

- "I will NOT settle for two 15 minute episodes. The Backers want a full movie. That's what was promised, and that's what must be made..."

- "I will take this case ALL THE WAY TO THE U.S. SUPREME COURT!"

Then - (as per said settlement):

- "And we get to make two 15 minute segments...so yes, I WON!"

The fact is:

Once the Judge rulled:

- Axanar's 'Fair Use' defense as invalid...

- ALL of Axanar's and Alec Peters financial records WERE material to the case AND could be introduced and analyzed in a trial and shown to a Jury...

Alec Peters QUICKLY accepted the same Settlement offer that it was later found CBS had originally offered nearly a year earlier.

So, yeah, sorry - after blowing most of the remaining Axanar pledge funds he hadn't already spent on himself/his friends/the failed studio on filing fees and deposition related fees and costs (That stuff isn't free/covered in 'Pro Bono' - the client pays ALL filing and court fees, as well as deposition costs including renting of space for said deposition, paying any expert witnesses his side called in to testify, the court reporter fees for his side's part of the deposition, etc.) <--- Even with no attorney fees, the rest of this wasn't cheap...

Bottom line: Yes, Mr. peters saw the writing on the wall (IE that CBS/Paramount WOULD get a Judgement against Mr. Peters and it would involve MASSIVE punative damages...so yeah, in the end (and probably after a big rant to his pro bono legal team who I think had a real hard time both controlling their client and convincing him of this fact); Mr. Peters BLINKED...HARD!

ETA: I said Pweters was a Plaintiff when he was in fact, the Defendant - so I corrected...

 

[Campe]

Sorry, you CAN when a Plaintiff (up until said Settlement) was saying:

I believe Alec Peters was a defendant in the Axanar matter.

 

[Noname Given]

I believe Alec Peters was a defendant in the Axanar matter.

You are correct. My mistake since Mr. Peters seems to like to sue others of late and I mistyped here (and now corrected ) - Thanks.

 

[gblews]

I would say that since CBS evidently *got* literally everything they were seeking from the lawsuit in the settlement itself, they had no reason to do anything but settle as soon as, shall we say, the opportunity to settle presented itself.

So, that's going to be "no." No, they did not both "blink." You can't even say that anyway, when you've also said this:

Yeah, you're right, that looks like a bit of a contradiction. What I was trying to get across is that the reason the Azanar case settled was because both parties wanted the same thing, that is, to resolve the case short of trial, despite CBS's seemingly overwhelmingly strong position.

CBS could easily have taken that case to trial to 'teach Peters a lesson' or to 'show others that we never settle'. But there were reasons they didn't. This goes to my overarching point, that no matter how strong or weak either parties case might seem, if you go to trial, you give up control to the courts, and in that situation, anything can happen.

What I meant in my previous post was that in the end, Peters and CBS were "equals", not in terms of strength of position, but in terms of how they both wanted the case resolved.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Yeah, you're right, that looks like a bit of a contradiction. What I was trying to get across is that the reason the Azanar case settled was because both parties wanted the same thing, that is, to resolve the case short of trial, despite CBS's seemingly overwhelmingly strong position.

I agree, that both regarded settling as the preferred option. But...

CBS could easily have taken that case to trial to 'teach Peters a lesson' or to 'show others that we never settle'. But there were reasons they didn't. Thi foes to my overarching point, that no matter how strong or weak either parties case might seem, if you go to trial, you give up control to the courts, and in that situation, anything can happen.

CBS didn't go to trial to "teach Peters a lesson" or to "show others that we never settle." CBS agreed to settle, because they were getting everything they wanted.

What I meant in my previous post was that in the end, Peters and CBS were "equals", not in terms of strength of position, but in terms of how they both wanted the case resolved.

They were not equals. The settlement was actually very bad for Peters because it forced him to shutdown the previous incarnation of his gravy train and regroup. On the other hand the settlement was very good for CBS. The principle objective in filing the lawsuit was to rein in a project that appeared to be profiting by infringement. That was accomplished. But to say that both parties were "equals" in any sense is to miss the point entirely in what the case was about. One side got exactly what they wanted, the other had to dramatically change their behavior.

 

[gblews]

CBS could easily have taken that case to trial to 'teach Peters a lesson' or to 'show others that we never settle'. But there were reasons they didn't. This goes to my overarching point, that no matter how strong or weak either parties case might seem, if you go to trial, you give up control to the courts, and in that situation, anything can happen.

CBS didn't go to trial because the lawsuit was not filed to "teach Peters a lesson" or to "show others that we never settle." CBS agreed to settle, because they were getting everything they wanted.

There is a double negative in your first sentence, so I hope I'm getting your meaning. Also I didn't say anything about the "lawsuit' in what you quoted. I think you misunderstood my post above. What I said was CBS "could" have taken the case to trial on the basis' mentioned in my post and that is true, they could have. They didn't, but could have. Read what I wrote, again.

What I meant in my previous post was that in the end, Peters and CBS were "equals", not in terms of strength of position, but in terms of how they both wanted the case resolved.

They were not equals.

I knew you were going to get stopped by the word, "equals". I think you may have misunderstood what I wrote. I said the two parties were equal "not in terms of strength of position" but only "in terms of the way they both wanted the case resolved". Had they not been "equals' in that regard, there would likely not have been a settlement. Read what I wrote, again.

The settlement was actually very bad for Peters because it forced him to shutdown the previous incarnation of his gravy train and regroup. On the other hand the settlement was very good for CBS. The principle objective in filing the lawsuit was to rein in a project that appeared to be profiting by infringement. That was accomplished. But to say that both parties were "equals" in any sense is to miss the point entirely in what the case was about. One side got exactly what they wanted, the other had to dramatically change their

Yes, I know, I read the article. This is not something we disagree on. But honestly, at this point, can't exactly figure out what it is we are disagreeing on.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

There is a double negative in your first sentence, so I hope I'm getting your meaning.

Oh, sorry about that. That was sloppy. I obviously didn't proofread well enough what the final form of that sentence was. I'll fix it in a minute.

But honestly, at this point, can't exactly figure out what it is we are disagreeing on.

In conjunction with the Abdin situation, you've been saying all along that it's in the interest of CBS to settle before going to trial. I've been disagreeing.

There are two important difference between the Axanar and Abdin lawsuits. First, CBS was the plaintiff in the first and is the defendant in the second. When CBS settled the Axanar case, they got literally everything they were looking for. The fact that that case was settled doesn't really tell us what the calculus is in the second situation.

The second important difference is that the Abdin situation seems like a frivolous lawsuit. The lawsuit that CBS filed against Axanar was not frivolous. If there's someone to go the extra mile and make an example of, I think it's more likely Abdin than Peters. I said it before: CBS has zero interest in inviting people to make frivolous claims against their IP. CBS has a good relationship with the fan film community, and they wanted terms in the Axanar situation that were only what was necessary to protect their IP.

 

[gblews]

In conjunction with the Abdin situation, you've been saying all along that it's in the interest of CBS to settle before going to trial. I've been disagreeing.

What I have been saying is that CBS does have some incentive to settle the Abdin case. That is a fact. The only question is, how much incentive they have to settle the case prior to the decision on the Motion to Dismiss. I have never said that CBS has a lot of incentive to settle the case prior to the decision on Dismissal, only that there is "some".

Indeed with the revelation on Carlos' website that Abdin's team is asking for more time to develop a connection between Abdin's work and the DSC production team is an indication that what little incentive CBS may have is diminishing daily. But no one can predict the future so you at least pick up the phone (either party), and explore the possibility of settlement. It does sound to me like Abdin is the one who should be making that call right now.

Now, if the case is not dismissed, I would think that CBS's incentive to settle increases and will continue to increase each day the case goes on and the closer it gets to a possible trial. That's because CBS has the most to lose at trial. For Abdin, if he can get the case past the Dismissal, their incentive to settle lessens.

When CBS settled the Axanar case, they got literally everything they were looking for. The fact that that case was settled doesn't really tell us what the calculus is in the second situation.

What it definitely tells us is that CBS is not locked in on taking all lawsuits to trial at least when CBS is the plaintiff and are open to settlement subject to negotiation of terms.

The second important difference is that the Abdin situation seems like a frivolous lawsuit. The lawsuit that CBS filed against Axanar was not frivolous. If there's someone to go the extra mile and make an example of, I think it's more likely Abdin than Peters. I said it before: CBS has zero interest in inviting people to make frivolous claims against their IP. CBS has a good relationship with the fan film community, and they wanted terms in the Axanar situation that were only what was necessary to protect their IP.

I think you and possibly others may think I'm arguing on the side of Abdin and Peters and that's simply not the case. I spent many years in a profession where I had to make settlement recommendations and had to direct attorney actions in litigation. I'm looking at these cases as dispassionately as possible given the information available to us. I'd be willing to bet that is the way the CBS lawyers are looking at it as well. Can't speak for Abdin or Peters' reps.

I do think that you are seeing these cases with some amount of emotion and maybe that is where the disconnect between us resides.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I do think that you are seeing these cases with some amount of emotion

Nope.

One correction/revision:

In conjunction with the Abdin situation, you've been saying all along that it's in the interest of CBS to settle before going to trial. I've been disagreeing.

What I mean is, I do not believe that it is in CBS's interest to settle the Abdin case in order to avoid going to trial. That's a fine distinction, but an important one. If they can get what they consider to be a favorable settlement, then of course they should take it. But if it's not, then, no they really have a lot to lose by giving Abdin even a pittance, unless of course they actually did steal his work (which seems highly doubtful).

 

[mos6507]

CBS could easily have taken that case to trial to 'teach Peters a lesson' or to 'show others that we never settle'. But there were reasons they didn't.

Two of those reasons were JJ Abrams (it's going away) and Justin Lin . They may have spoken out of turn without knowing the particulars of the case (like the weak level of sympathy Trek fandom had for Alec, despite supporting the idea of fanfilms being able to be made without being sued) but from a PR perspective CBS/Paramount kind of had to limit things to a slap on the wrist.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

Two of those reasons were JJ Abrams (it's going away) and Justin Lin . They may have spoken out of turn without knowing the particulars of the case (like the weak level of sympathy Trek fandom had for Alec, despite supporting the idea of fanfilms being able to be made without being sued) but from a PR perspective CBS/Paramount kind of had to limit things to a slap on the wrist.

That's not a believable theory for why CBS reached settlement. Here's what someone with first hand knowledge had to say about it:

Abrams' surprise announcement was welcome news to the makers of "Axanar." Yet one month later, the lawsuit shows no signs of going away anytime soon. Last week, lawyers for Paramount and CBS informed a federal judge in California that their legal action was still pending, rejecting the defendants' claims that the film was protected under fair use. For now, the fate of "Axanar" remains in limbo.

"Nothing has changed," Robert Meyer Burnett, who is set to direct "Axanar" if it ever goes into production, told The Times last week. "It has been going through the court system exactly the same way it had been before [Abrams] made that announcement…. I think, unfortunately, the outcome ultimately is not going to be favorable to us and certainly not for our fans and our donors." (A spokesperson for Paramount did not respond to a request for comment.)​

https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...xanar-lawsuit-update-20160617-snap-story.html