Case dismissed! Discovery and Tardigrade game "not similar"

[Rahul]

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?

We're confusing two things here:

1) Could they have copied his stuff?
2) Did they actually copy his stuff?

No. 1) is clear: He published his work. CBS most definitely could have accessed and copied his stuff.
Thus, the court should go into phase 2): Did they actually do that. Which would be pretty easy to prove by just looking at the series bible from an earlier development stage.

But what CBS is trying (and succeding at) is making the burden for (1) SO high as to realistically impossible: FInd the exact person that saw your stuff and copied it, out of a million dollar company - basically the guy has to present enough evidence to unquestionably win the case before the case even actually starts - that they try to evade the actual part (2) of the investigation. And that is simply not fair.

 

[Tuskin38]

We're confusing two things here:

1) Could they have copied his stuff?
2) Did they actually copy his stuff.

No. 1) is clear: He published his work. CBS most definitely could have accessed and copied his stuff.
Thus, the court should go into phase 2): Did they actually do that. Which would be pretty easy to prove by just looking at the series bible from an earlier development stage.

But what CBS is trying (and succeding at) is making the burden for (1) SO high as to realistically impossible: FInd the exact person that saw your stuff and copied it, out of a million dollar company - basically the guy has to present enough evidence to win the case before the case even actually starts - that they try to evade the actual part (2) of the investigation. And that is simply not fair.

CBS isn't the judge, they didn't order the discovery phase.

 

[Jackson_Roykirk]

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.

That's not proof. Tardigrades were everywhere in pop culture back then. Maybe there were thousands of writers creating stories about them, and its possible that two share coincidental similarities.

You can't rule for the plaintiff just because it's possible it wasn't a coincidence. The plaintiff needs to show specific evidence to that effect.

 

[cultcross]

IMO they should actually have to decide the case

They are deciding the case - access is part of the case.

Actual look at some concepts and talk to people. Not immediately throw it out because the guy can't prove a double negative either.

It's not proving a double negative, it is proving that the person you are saying copied your idea actually had access to it before they allegedly copied it.

We're confusing two things here:

1) Could they have copied his stuff?
2) Did they actually copy his stuff.

"We" aren't confusing anything. You are confusing 'he published it on a website' with 'CBS therefore has access'. That doesn't follow.
The plaintiff, once again, must prove access and substantial similarity. The court have asked for evidence of the former. If, as you say, the very fact that he put it on a website is sufficient to prove access then he should have no problem at all discharging the burden to the satisfaction of the court.

 

[Rahul]

Basically, we're looking at two entirely different justice systems:

1) The corporation. CBS could have produced a document unquestionably proving their innocence by laying out the timetable of their Tardigrade. They didn't. Thus the case could move on.

2) But the person? He needs to provide evidence that would make him win the case even before the discovery-phase even begins, and if he isn't capable of completely reconstructing the exact details of the events, the case will be thrown out even before they are actually looking at the events at all and the questionable content.

And that's a problem.

"We" aren't confusing anything. You are confusing 'he published it on a website' with 'CBS therefore has access'. That doesn't follow.
The plaintiff, once again, must prove access and substantial similarity. The court have asked for evidence of the former. If, as you say, the very fact that he put it on a website is sufficient to prove access then he should have no problem at all discharging the burden to the satisfaction of the court.

That's the problem right here: The court isn't asking wether he made it publically available. He did that. The court is asking which person at CBS actually saw that. Which is evidence no one outside of CBS is ever available to get.

That's like proving somebody read a specific book. That's simply impossible to prove. Nobody can prove I really did saw "Star Trek" before I created "Space Trek" with Mr. Spork. In this case, it would be completely sufficient that the corporation published their material before me. That's simply measuring the same thing with two different standards.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

@Rahul: Maybe rewatch TNG's "A Matter of Perspective" and get back to us.

 

[Tuskin38]

2) But the person? He needs to provide evidence that would make him win the case even before the discovery-phase even begins, and if he isn't capable of completely reconstructing the exact details of the events, the case will be thrown out even before they are actually looking at the events at all and the questionable content.

Because he's the accuser.

CBS doesn't need to do squat until asked by the court.

This is standard procedure for any case AFAIK.

 

[Red Panda]

I'm always a bit worried replying to @Rahul, since he accused me of threatening to murder him once (lol), but I think he's just a bit upset CBS keeps #winning when it comes to Star Trek.

 

[Rahul]

Because he's the accuser.

CBS doesn't need to do squat until asked by the court.

This is standard procedure for any case AFAIK.

He has proven that it's both objectively possible (publication + timetables) plus very likely (actual content) that CBS got their ideas from him. Now the court should look deeper into the case.

Demanding of him to do get the ultimate prove before the process even begins is an unreasonable burden no corporation would ever be demanded of.

If I create "Space Trek", the court wouldn't care when and who told me about "Star Trek" - it's enough they published it first and then they would simply look at how similar my "Space Trek" is to theirs.

This guy published the idea first.

 

[Red Panda]

He has proven that it's both objectively possible (publication + timetables) plus very likely (actual content) that CBS got their ideas from him. Now the court should look deeper into the case.

Demanding of him to do get the ultimate prove before the process even begins is an unreasonable burden no corporation would ever be demanded of.

If I create "Space Trek", the court wouldn't care when and who told me about "Star Trek" - it's enough they published it first and then they would simply look at how similar my "Space Trek" is to theirs.

This guy published the idea first.

He's not proven anything. That twat doesn't even know the name of the franchise he's suing, so stop giving him credit. He's a confused person that's been manipulated into doing this lawsuit by uglies.

 

[Rahul]

I'm always a bit worried replying to @Rahul, since he accused me of threatening to murder him once (lol),

You were banned for that.

 

[BillJ]

2) But the person? He needs to provide evidence that would make him win the case even before the discovery-phase even begins, and if he isn't capable of completely reconstructing the exact details of the events, the case will be thrown out even before they are actually looking at the events at all and the questionable content.

It isn't a problem. He is the accuser, he has the burden of proof. It is that simple, that is the way courts in the US work.

 

[Rahul]

It isn't a problem. He is the accuser, he has the burden of proof. It is that simple, that is the way courts in the US work.

He has to prove it was likely. He doesn't have to reconstruct the entire case himself.

If I publish "Space Trek", CBS can sue me, without ever having to prove when and where exactly I saw Star Trek.

 

[Red Panda]

You were banned for that.

You're not dead. Funny that.

 

[cultcross]

Basically, we're looking at two entirely different justice systems:

No, basically, we're looking at a system of law which says that if you accuse someone, you have the burden of proof.

The corporation. CBS could have produced a document unquestionably proving their innocence by laying out the timetable of their Tardigrade. They didn't. Thus the case could move on.

The accuser must provide evidence of their claim, not the defendant.

Which is evidence no one outside of CBS is ever available to get.

That's not true. The plaintiff has access to a number of tools to gather evidence.

If I publish "Space Trek", CBS can sue me, without ever having to prove when and where exactly I saw Star Trek

However often you repeat this, it isn't the killer point that you think it is. CBS would have the same points to prove as the Tardigrade guy, they would just have different ways of going about it, because Star Trek is everywhere. Locutus already went through how they might prove it.

It isn't a problem. He is the accuser, he has the burden of proof. It is that simple, that is the way courts in the US work.

That's the way courts work outside of Cardassia.

 

[Rahul]

The accuser must provide evidence of their claim, not the defendant.

For a conviction.

NOT for there being a case in the first place!
It's "present us with proof there might be a case". Not "present us with enough evidence to unquestionably solve the case for us to actually start the case at all".

 

[BillJ]

If I publish "Space Trek", CBS can sue me, without ever having to prove when and where exactly I saw Star Trek.

You don't get it, at all. Star Trek is a cultural staple, whether people watch it or not, it has permeated our culture. So maybe "Space Trek" would or wouldn't fly, though The Orville seems to be fine.

 

[cultcross]

For a conviction.

NOT for there being a case in the first place!

You're wrong on this. I don't know how much more plainly it can be said. Of course the plaintiff must demonstrate there is evidence of a case to answer, or people would be in court defending against frivolous lawsuits all the time. They need not prove it to the standard for a finding in their favour at this stage (convictions are criminal) but they must show the is evidence to back up their claim.

 

[fireproof78]

It isn't a problem. He is the accuser, he has the burden of proof. It is that simple, that is the way courts in the US work.

Yup. That's why lawyers go to school to learn how these things work in and out, burden of proof, timelines, access, etc. Until that is demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the American court system has this funny thing called "presumption of innocence."

I know, I was just as shocked as everyone else

 

[BillJ]

Until that is demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt" then the American court system has this funny thing called "presumption of innocence."

Unless you are a minority.