Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[Noname Given]

Not always true. Sometimes a case should be settled BEFORE it actually goes bad.

^^^
What? lawyers can usually tell how a case is going based on how a Judge is doing all the preliminary rulings. If you have legal staff on retainer and are sued; it's always good to see just what the other side has before just jumping the gun and settling out of the gate. Again in the real world A LOT of stuff happens before an actual trial.

 

[Campe]

I'm sorry, that was way too harsh by me! I didn't wanted to get personal.
I just kinda' snapped, because that's the whole issue since, like, 40 pages ago, which no one seems to understand, like fighting windmills....

Sorry!

Thanks for your apologies. Unnecessary but appreciated. We all have our moments of passion. I get it. Also, thank you for getting the relevant information... Reading now...

I actually went back. Here are the relevant bits:

I bolded the important part.
Essentially, the situation is like this:

1. Abedin claims CBS stole his ideas. He provided a collage of similarities. His lawyer tried to request/subpoena documenst from CBS, because they would prove or refute his claim.
2. The court didn't allow for this to happen - instead, it ONLY allows for a "limited discovery", in which Abedin is ONLY allowed to prove weather or not any of DIS' creators accessed Abedin's game before the show was created

The problem wit this is:

• This is completely impossible for Abedin or his lawyers to produce. They woould have to research which out of a thousand employes watched his YouTube-trailers or visited his page. That's impossible - he doesn't have the internet records of CBS
  
• Until Abedin can't prove that direct access, NOTHING in this court battle moves forward - especially not his subpoenas of CBS documents.
  
• Without being able to subpoena documents, Abedin can't prove that they really stole his idea. Instead CBS' caim they accidently created the exact same idea at the same time on their own is suspicious, but unable to be proven false.

That's the main issue of this entire court battle: Abedin alledges CBS stole his stuff (the statue). He gave evidence, but not proof of that (a picture of a same-looking statue through the window). Now, his lawyer wants to take a look at CBS' design documents to see if they were using his ideas (force them to bring the statue to the front door, so that they can take a look at it). CBS refuses. The court ordered Abedin to prove access through the entirety of the internet, BEFORE he is allowed to take a look at the statue.

It's circular logic.
For CBS, it would be cakewalk to produce a document - if they actually came up with it on their own. For Abedin, it's utterly impossible to prove it was actually the neighbour that stole the statue, if he can't prove the statue is the same, because the statue is on his neighbours property. And they force him to do the latter, before anyone does the former.

So yes, it all comes down to - they are denying him the right to subpoena documents, because he has to prove it was actually his statue that's standing there before he is allowed to take a look at the statue.

Since then - his lawyer started to do crazy publicity stunts and ruin his reputation, because there is literally nothing else he can do at this point.

Okay, I read. A little background on myself before I start. While I'm getting my Masters of Healthcare Administration, I've been working as a legal assistant for a big insurance company. In my career, I also have worked as a paralegal in tort litigation, estate planning, both for mid or small law firms, and healthcare for a major medical center. I know a little about law. Not an expert by any stretch, but I've read my share of legal documents. I read this and went back and read Carlos' articles. I needed something that had a little less passion behind it. Sorry, but needed to get to some real factual stuff here.

First, let me start by saying: I think you're looking at this too emotionally. As I said previously, I get that as a society, we root for the underdog. I do. And I love a good underdog story, but I am seeing very little in the record showing anything that is out of sorts for a legal proceeding. Yes, there's a little bickering and some crap from CBS' attorneys, particularly around producing these discovery documents. But the judge is asking them to play nice. And to be fair, its a lot of things the Plaintiff and his attorney is asking for. Some of the data may be gone and unless there's a litigation hold? It's damned near impossible to get the information off of people's computers when they no longer work for the company and the data is long gone. deleted by IT as the PC is reused. This is a long time ago we're talking about. Also, there comes into consideration the idea that perhaps, that maybe, if, Abdin's Tardigrades game page was accessed by an outside source, that maybe it was done on their home computer. Or a mobile device. Now, I still have the PC I had in 2015, but its getting to the point I need to get a new one. Same with the tablet I had in 2015. I certainly don't have the phone that I did in 2015. But even if I did, the data that I had on there, particularly browsing history? Long gone. Same for my PC and tablet.

But, one point that you're missing in regards to what you call a "threat" is that the Judge ordered the sides to confer in good faith in regards to the discovery issue. This means that CBS should produce what they can (as long as its not unduly burdensome and within the realm of what the limited discovery involves) to the Plaintiff. Now, that was supposed to happen by March 19th and I have no idea if it was or not. But at that time, discovery was still going and Plaintiffs had a Motion to Compel the following:

Per Axamonitor:

• IP addresses: Johnson wanted Information about IP addresses of various CBS-owned domains.
• Connections to Steam: He wanted Steam user account information about anyone involved in developing or producing Discovery, as well as accounts registered by anyone from CBS Broadcasting, All Access, Netflix, Living Dead Guy Productions, Secret Hideout, Roddenberry Entertainment or Pinewood Toronto Studios.
• Steam subpoena: From Steam, Johnson hoped to obtain the voting record, and user information about anyone involved in developing or producing Discovery who voted on the Tardigrades game.
• Discovery creators and staff Johnson was interested in included Bryan Fuller, Alex Kurtzman, Nicholas Meyer, Aaron Harberts, Akiva Goldsman, Erika Lippoldt, Gretchen J. Berg, John Eaves, Jonathan Frakes, Kirsten Beyer, Olatunde Osunsanmi, Rod Roddenberry and Trevor Roth. More are listed in court documents.

Some of that is a little ridiculous. Some of it makes sense. But there are people listed that were in no way involved in the show when it was being developed. But some of it, including the IP addresses and the subpoena to Steam are probably important to his case. And its going to be a lot of documentation that Abdin's attorney is going to have to look through. Now, thankfully with PDFs, its a little easier, but imagine back in the day when you literally needed to look through each and every piece of paper.

Point being, from an honest legal perspective? I think the judge is being very fair in allowing Abdin and his attorney the possibility to look into this and by stopping the bickering and asking both sides to play nice. But I don't see any particular perceived threats or unfairness here. Its still up to Abdin and his attorney to provide the evidence, and if the discovery issue has been worked through (and I assume at this point it has), he has his opportunity to prove his case. I'm just not convinced its there.

 

[Photoman15]

If I were the plaintiff, I wouldn't take settlement monies (which would undoubtedly also include some kind of draconian arbitrating document stating I could never use the IP that they stole). I'd want it to go all the way to a hearing because the entire concept of the show is based very solidly on the Tardigrades concept, and I would either want the show shut down or serious royalties for every episode produced.

Not quite. The spore drive originally did not have the Tardigrade part of it. They found that he could control the destination. The show (Season 1, as of the lawsuit) was not based solely around the Tardigrade nor the spore drive. It was a means for travel. The Klingon War and the Mirroe Universe was the main crux of the season.

No, the judge would then have to recuse him/herself.

Why? Human judges don't sit on cases involving humans?

 

[Rahul]

As I said previously, I get that as a society, we root for the underdog. I do. And I love a good underdog story, but I am seeing very little in the record showing anything that is out of sorts for a legal proceeding. Yes, there's a little bickering and some crap from CBS' attorneys, particularly around producing these discovery documents. But the judge is asking them to play nice.

To be honest - as far as underdog-stories go, this is a pretty crappy one. The original idea was probably the most imaginative element of season 1. But even then it was based on faulty science and bad logic, and while I absolutely love Ripper the creature itself, the whole backstory and how it was used as a McGuffin was the weakest part.

But mainly, I don't think this is a case with a clear-cut good vs. evil side. The judge seems to follow protocol just fine, and CBS' lawyers do what they are supposed to do - shielding CBS from any liability being obviously more important than "proving" their innocence or their integrity. If anything, I do believe that the overall case is a pretty minor one - somehow his Tardigrade got into their concept materials, and they integrated part of it into their original story. But it's not as if they destroyed his lifehood or made his "game" unviable. They just ran with one of a hundred ideas, and failed to fairly aknowledge where it came from.

The bigger problem is the whole system being slanted to such a degree, there is literally no possible way to prosecute any white-collar crime anymore, without representing a multi-million dollar estate yourself. This is not a problem of this specific case - this is systemic. It simply has become utterly impossible for a normal person to get even the tiniest amount of justice against large corporations. Not even a prosecution mind you, simply just an honest investigation, even if a case is as obviously fishy on first sight as this one.

 

[BillJ]

Abedin's lawyer, myself, and common sense all think at this point the neighbour should be asked to take his statue, walk to the front door with it, where Abedin and the Police stand, and have them take a look at it to see if it's the same. Then he can go back inside with it.

And the neighbor is allowed to refuse, and to tell them to go get a warrant. All the while, that doesn't make him guilty.

 

[Rahul]

And the neighbor is allowed to refuse, and to tell them to go get a warrant. All the while, that doesn't make him guilty.

Can't argue with that.

(That would then probably be the point at which the television detective says "dammit, then I'll do it myself", and breaks into the house itself, proves the case, and somehow nobody dismisses his evidence for being obtained illegally)

 

[urbandefault]

The bigger problem is the whole system being slanted to such a degree, there is literally no possible way to prosecute any white-collar crime anymore, without representing a multi-million dollar estate yourself. This is not a problem of this specific case - this is systemic. It simply has become utterly impossible for a normal person to get even the tiniest amount of justice against large corporations. Not even a prosecution mind you, simply just an honest investigation, even if a case is as obviously fishy on first sight as this one.

This is civil litigation, not a criminal case. There's no prosecution. The investigation takes place in discovery, the scope of which defined by the judge.

 

[Campe]

They just ran with one of a hundred ideas, and failed to fairly aknowledge where it came from.

I have to add: assuming CBS lifted the idea from the Tardigrades game. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but Plaintiff's attorney still needs to do his job and prove his client's case. That's the innocent until proven guilty bit.

 

[DaveyNY]

This is civil litigation, not a criminal case. There's no prosecution. The investigation takes place in discovery, the scope of which defined by the judge.

And as I've previously pointed out, the Judge in this case has been more than willing to practically bend over backward, to give the Plaintiff a huge amount of leeway since the beginning.
(within the demands of previous case law permits of course)

 

[BillJ]

I have to add: assuming CBS lifted the idea from the Tardigrades game. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but Plaintiff's attorney still needs to do his job and prove his client's case. That's the innocent until proven guilty bit.

This. Though I'm not sure the plaintiff's attorney was up for this challenge. It is playing more like they expected CBS to fold and give them a quick payday.

 

[Rahul]

I have to add: assuming CBS lifted the idea from the Tardigrades game. I'm willing to entertain the possibility, but Plaintiff's attorney still needs to do his job and prove his client's case. That's the innocent until proven guilty bit.

Yes, of course, assuming. I don't hide that I'm heavily leaning into believing that - but that is simply because the similarities originally shown by Abedin.

If we got any other information from behind-the-scenes - doesn't even have to be relate to this specific case, I'm really curious about the whole behind-the-scenes stuff of this show anyway - I might completely come around, or solidify my opinion. So far, it's really not more than a hunch.

But one that I'm honestly far more interested in what actually really happened behind the scenes, then whatever this court case ends up with.

 

[Rahul]

It is playing more like they expected CBS to fold and give them a quick payday.

To be honest, this looks more like the other extreme: That they were extremely sure of themselves, that they thought they were in the right, and that it would be easy to prove. And instead of settling for peanuts, went for the whole cake, and completely overplayed their hand. And then got burned.

 

[BillJ]

And instead of settling for peanuts, went for the whole cake. And then got burned.

You always ask for more than you are expecting to get.

 

[Campe]

Yes, of course, assuming. I don't hide that I'm heavily leaning into believing that - but that is simply because the similarities originally shown by Abedin.

If we got any other information from behind-the-scenes - doesn't even have to be relate to this specific case, I'm really curious about the whole behind-the-scenes stuff of this show anyway - I might completely come around, or solidify my opinion. So far, it's really not more than a hunch.

But one that I'm honestly far more interested in what actually really happened behind the scenes, then whatever this court case ends up with.

I honestly see very little in the way of similarities that can't be explained past the idea that when both Tardigrades and Discovery were in development, the Tardigrade was very popular in scientific circles and that its possible (but would need to be proven by the Defense) that parallel development occurred. Its not unheard of. At the same time, some of his supposed similarities are stretching it quite a bit.

 

[DaveyNY]

Abdin's Tardigrade is Blue and Grabs hold of a person to do the travelling trough space.

CBS' Tardigrade is Brownish and is simply the Navigator of a made up Star Drive System that travels through a Intergalactic Spore System.

The one similarity is only that a Tardigrade is involved.

Not something that someone can probably hold a copyright on.

 

[Noname Given]

Again: This guy cannot produce the web search history of thousands of employees. If that's the burden, you might as well scrap the whole "equal before law"-thing, because no one takes it serious anyway.

^^^
WES, IT IS HIS burden to PROVE his claim WITH EVIDENCE (IE His claim that someone from CBS MUST have visited the Steam website - and thus saw his amazing idea - and wholesale stole it for the series Star Trek Discovery.)

If the plaintiff cannot do that, then his claim is without any legal merit; and he shouldn't have brought a lawsuit WITHOUT PROOF.

Bottom line - The plaintiff's BELIEF that this MUST have occurred isn't enough for him to prevail in court and receive damages.

The fact CBS is asking for said plaintiff tom be able to provide said evidence isn't 'proof of guilt' - it's a request that actual legal procedure is followed before they are required to spend time refuting the plaintiff's claim. If the Plaintiff can't provide proper hard/verifiable evidence, that ISN'T CBS' problem.

 

[saladdays]

The bigger problem is the whole system being slanted to such a degree, there is literally no possible way to prosecute any white-collar crime anymore, without representing a multi-million dollar estate yourself. This is not a problem of this specific case - this is systemic. It simply has become utterly impossible for a normal person to get even the tiniest amount of justice against large corporations. Not even a prosecution mind you, simply just an honest investigation, even if a case is as obviously fishy on first sight as this one.

What's more systemic, IMO, than anything you mention here is the high amount of frivolous or unfounded lawsuits, which I think many people would include this proceeding as one, and I personally think it may arguably be so.

I'm not saying it's necessarily the case here, but plenty of people look for a quick buck, especially with large companies who can actually provide a payout. You can talk about how unfair the system is to the little guy all you want (and I agree it is unfair in certain circumstances), but you also find little guys trying to play the system as well, and often do get rewarded for it.

 

[Rahul]

^^^
WES, IT IS HIS burden to PROVE his claim WITH EVIDENCE (IE His claim that someone from CBS MUST have visited the Steam website - and thus saw his amazing idea - and wholesale stole it for the series Star Trek Discovery.)

If the plaintiff cannot do that, then his claim is without any legal merit; and he shouldn't have brought a lawsuit WITHOUT PROOF.

Bottom line - The plaintiff's BELIEF that this MUST have occurred isn't enough for him to prevail in court and receive damages.

The fact CBS is asking for said plaintiff tom be able to provide said evidence isn't 'proof of guilt' - it's a request that actual legal procedure is followed before they are required to spend time refuting the plaintiff's claim. If the Plaintiff can't provide proper hard/verifiable evidence, that ISN'T CBS' problem.

No.
The only thing he can do is collect exhibits and evidence so that a court starts looking into the case. He cannot subpoena documents from CBS on his own. He is a private citizen. Demanding of him that he is able to produce information only the State is legally allowed to acquire is beyond laughable.

He has done that. There is literally nothing else he can legally do other than using a massive data-breach at CBS to collect personal information of all CBS' employees and match their entire Internet usage over the past few years with every view his videos or STEAM page got. That's simply impossible.

We are way over the point were an objective investigation would be necessary. Doesn't even have to be a big one - really, granting a single subpoena would already be enough.

The scandal is not that someone is obviously at fault or not. Only an investigation could determine that. The scandal is that the whole thing is not even looked at in the first place, but completely sweeped under the rug.

 

[Rahul]

but you also find little guys trying to play the system as well, and often do get rewarded for it.

Patent trolling is a real problem, but it's really is not a thing that regular citizens or "little guys" do...

 

[saladdays]

Patent trolling is a real problem, but it's really is not a thing that regular citizens or "little guys" do...

You were talking about the whole legal system with your comment I was responding to. Hence, I was talking about the whole legal system as well. You might not be very familiar with employment law, for example, where stuff like this happens all the time.